Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My almost ready witness statement ...    In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it.   Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself.   There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian.   As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document.   It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving.   There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper.   There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.     As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusion: VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court   Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land.   The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim.   Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.
    • I have read that thread. I will need to wait for last date of deferral to get key information to go back to Drydens.   I already asked for them to set aside, they refused but they have sent a message to court suspending warrant of control and put account on hold whilst they answer my SAR. I have also requested SAR to SLC.    
    • you do NOT need to pay it and anyway that would not remove the ccj, its there on your file paid or not for 6yrs, a paid ccj even with a cert of satisfaction is as bad as a non paid one.   the ONLY way to remove it is to set it aside.   sadly you the very worst thing you could have done with ANY debt on your credit file or not that you last used or paid or wrote about to the debt owner in the last 7 yrs....you ran away,,,moved without informing the debt owner of your correct and current address.   erudio and drydens are masters at doing backdoor ccj's. they are ofcourse totally wrong that the defaulted date is the sb date...well not when your last written/signed ack of the debt was more than 6yrs before the claimform date.   now how do you remove it....go read that thread ...carefullly then comeback here and lets see if you understand how.   dx  
    • Thanks, having to move house and discovered this. It's causing a nightmare in trying to rent somewhere and mortgage was also refused by the bank.    Shortly after requesting info I got a warrant in the post from bailifs. Managed to halt that and pause any action till I get key dates to try and get this removed.   Not wanting to avoid paying it, just need the CCJ gone.   Appreciate your help. Will read fully although I am not great with law.
    • Write the letter. It's important that you put this in writing so that you have a paper trail. Send the letter by recorded first class delivery. Explain that because of the defect in the bundle which has manifested itself within 30 days – always refer to the bundle – you are now rejecting it under the consumer rights act 2015 and that you require a refund and you want to know what their arrangements will be for providing you with this. You can also send this by email – but do it straight away. This reserves your rights and after that you have some flexibility as to how you want to act. I understand that they are uncooperative. No surprises. Don't imagine either that they will be fazed by your letter – but the important thing is that you are able to show that you are asserting your rights. After that, they are acting unlawfully We will help you make a claim against them and I suppose that will involve threatening to sue them and maybe even going on to sue them. You will find interesting and you will acquire some transferable skills which will enable you to sue anybody else who gets in your way with a degree of confidence. However, it might be a good idea to mitigate your loss and I would suggest that you accept the money that they have put on the table but make sure that they understand that you are accepting it and you are happy with it and you consider that they still owe you the outstanding £70. If you are asked to sign anything then you should decline and then we will help you claim for the whole lot. However if they don't ask you to sign for anything, then make sure that they have a letter from you at the same time saying thanks very much do for the £250. You are accepting it but this should not be taken as an indication that you are now relinquishing your claim to the rest of the money. Tell us what you want to do – with you want to take the 250 or whether you want to simply reject the lot and claim for the lot. If you want to take the 250 – which I suggest that you do – and if they will give you the money despite the fact that you are still reserve your rights in respect of the balance, then come back here when you have that money and we will help you with the rest. If they refuse to give you the money unless you agree that it is in full settlement, then that becomes very interesting because it becomes very clear evidence that they are beating their obligations under the consumer rights act – and this gives you even greater leverage over them when you decide to confront them. The advantage of mitigating your loss is that there is less to sue for and that means that your court fees will be less – although you will get these back anyway when you win. Also, because they are only fighting to hang onto £70, they are more likely to put their hands up once they know you're serious. There is absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking the money that is available on the table subject to the reservation which I've indicated above.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim


overdone
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3992 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

Does anyone know if the information below applies to unregulated loans too. The first line says that ALL LOAN AGREEMENTS MUST CONTAIN, just wandering if anyone knew and would appreciate any help or advice. Thanks

 

All loan agreements must contain the following terms and conditions in order for the contract to be valid:

 

  • The full amount of the loan
  • The full amount of the loan repayable with interest
  • The rate of interest (APR)
  • The amount of interest charged
  • The cost of PPI
  • The amount payable in each instalment
  • The total number of instalments to be made
  • How the borrower will make the repayments
  • The dates of when the agreement starts and ends
  • Full terms and conditions
  • Signatures from both the debtor and creditor

If your existing secured/unsecured loan, credit card, store card, car loan agreement was not fully explained to you, and does not contain the above information, then you can mount a legal challenge to your creditor and potentially undo the loan. In short, the contract between you and the lender becomes unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks got a reply from Swift this morning and guess what they say they are not in the wrong and if I disagree to go to the Financial Ombudsman. In relation to the increased payments they have advised that my mortgage was at a variable rate of 9.84% which was discounted for one year at 2.00 % giving a rate of 7.84%. Whilst I enjoyed the 2.00 % discount for the first 12 months however it still remained variable which meant it was subject to change depending on economic conditions and any changes in teh interst rate during the loan payment would not be linked to the initial 12 month discount the broker arranged.

 

My initial monthly repayments were £590.51 and then went up to £610.00 this was well before the year was up and increased to nearly £700.00.

The way that I worked my figures out was as follows;-

 

Amount of mortgage £66,576.00

 

12 months interest @ 7.84% = £5,219.55 approx

39 months interest @ say 11.19% = £7,449.85 approx

Broker's fees £4,460.00

Insuranc Premiums £3,150.00

Early repayment charge £3,545.58

Discharge of security £250.00

Total = £90,650.00

Less payments made of approx £15,801.42

Total = £74,849.56

Plus charges from 16/6/08 = £1,737.51 (got this from redemption statement I had in 09)

Amount to redeem mortgage £76,587.97 approx

Mortgage redeemed in August 2009 and £90,000.00 was paid leaving a shortfall of £3,140.64 which I am paying every month at £30.00 and have paid £420.00 since August 2009. I calculate that they owe me £17,771.01 approx

 

 

With regards to the amount of £17,771.01 I say has been over charged they state I am wrong and this is how they reached their figure.

 

Amount of Loan £66,576.00 plus £4,460.00 for fees, £3,150.00 for insurance premiums i.e.PPI) making the total loan of £74,186.00 the term of the loan was for 22 years and stated in April 2006. Interest levied (excluding charges) £26,036.57

Less payments received £16,066.09

Sub Total due £84,156.48

 

Charges Incurred

Buildings Insurance £ 93.47

Tradesmen invoices£ 56.00

Legal fees £1,997.41

Post default collection charges £1,820.00

Loan Co Admin charge - R/D cheque charge £330.00

Eastern counselling Agency default charge £250.00

Other fes and charges £587.00

Interest levied on charges incurred £234.02

Sub total £89,524.38

Add additional administration fee £250.00

Early settlement interest charged £3,366.26

Settlement figure in August 2009 £93,140.64

 

That was Swift's reply to my letter Don't know where they got the building insurance charge from as I had my own buildings Insurance with Zurich Insurance nor the tradesmen invoice, other fees totally baffled but won't stop untitl I get satisfaction. This is total robbery for taking out a repayment mortgage of £74,186.00 and owing £93,140.64.

 

The mortgage broker was First Class Mortgages of 6th Floor, Crown House, Cambridge Road, Barking and also Swift paid them £2,967.44 for me taking the mortgage with Swift.

 

May be some one could look at my figures and if they know anything of the charges Swift has given as to how they reached the mortgage.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Registered company no: 02703244

psp

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cas.

Your agreement states in the Key Financial information Box an APR rate of interest , as it should do....... because your agreement is regulated……BUT

If you look at the other financial information on your agreement the interest rate quoted there does not contain the words APR as it is a regulated agreement not to quote this as an APR renders the agreement unenforceable……..also Mark White in Court on oath stated that to quote two different interest rates on an agreement would be misleading to the borrower, this stated in our judgement summary …so therefore he is admitting that you were misled …there are two interest rates showing on your agreement ……..no argument there ……..again use the Law of Estoppel to prevent him from attempting to change that statement….in any event he stated this under oath

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cas.

Your agreement states in the Key Financial information Box an APR rate of interest , as it should do....... because your agreement is regulated……BUT

If you look at the other financial information on your agreement the interest rate quoted there does not contain the words APR as it is a regulated agreement not to quote this as an APR renders the agreement unenforceable……..also Mark White in Court on oath stated that to quote two different interest rates on an agreement would be misleading to the borrower, this stated in our judgement summary …so therefore he is admitting that you were misled …there are two interest rates showing on your agreement ……..no argument there ……..again use the Law of Estoppel to prevent him from attempting to change that statement….in any event he stated this under oath

sparkie

Hi

Been watching this excellent thead, a bit confused by this though why would the lack of an APR render the agreement unenforceable, it is not a prescribed term.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Been watching this excellent thead, a bit confused by this though why would the lack of an APR render the agreement unenforceable, it is not a prescribed term.

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

I think this will answer your question...........If it is not stated as an APR....or other type such as a nominal rate... how can you calculate it is correct and your payments are correct?.

 

sparkie

 

Regina -v- Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 320.

 

4 Apr 2000

Admn

Consumer, Crime, Financial Services

A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract.

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is timescales for criminal charges to be brought of 1 Year and 3 Years but in any event it can possibly render the agreement not only unenforceable but .....Void.

It falls also under the Misrepresentation Act 1987....its a misrepresentation of fact...........the arguments would have to be..... was it "deliberate"?...... or was it "recklessly negligent"? or negligent by "ommission of material fact"?

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the information below applies to unregulated loans too. The first line says that ALL LOAN AGREEMENTS MUST CONTAIN, just wandering if anyone knew and would appreciate any help or advice. Thanks

 

All loan agreements must contain the following terms and conditions in order for the contract to be valid:

 

  • The full amount of the loan
  • The full amount of the loan repayable with interest
  • The rate of interest (APR)
  • The amount of interest charged
  • The cost of PPI
  • The amount payable in each instalment
  • The total number of instalments to be made
  • How the borrower will make the repayments
  • The dates of when the agreement starts and ends
  • Full terms and conditions
  • Signatures from both the debtor and creditor

If your existing secured/unsecured loan, credit card, store card, car loan agreement was not fully explained to you, and does not contain the above information, then you can mount a legal challenge to your creditor and potentially undo the loan. In short, the contract between you and the lender becomes unenforceable.

 

Hi fretful,

 

Just spotted your post............In my view whether the APR rule applies to unregulated agreements is a bit of a grey area the 1983 and 2004 Regs start off by referring to regulated agreements....but then only refer to "credit agreements" it is therfore unclear if they do or not...a ruling has not been made as of yet on this particular fact.......as far as I can find out,

so until then you will have to rely on the Misrepresentation Act 1987 and the 1983 Consumer Protection Act ..Section 20.

On a variable rate loan as far as the total inerest and amount an example must be shown on the agreement as to how much if the interest should stay the same for the period of the laoa or should it go up by a particular amount.....but again this appears only to apply to regulated agreements.

 

But don't take my view as fact I'm just a dumbo auto spark as I have said before

 

sparkie

 

"

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken from the OFT guidelines on subprime lending

There should be full transparency about the circumstances in which any

variable rates or charges may change, in particular where they are not

linked to Bank of England base rate”.

Has Swift Advances plc ever told anyone BEFORE they signed their agreement that their loan rates were not linked to the BOE base rate…..I only found out after we had signed ours and then had to go searching for what LIBOR meant…..that’s their kind of transparency

Sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?272232-Hfc-Refuse-To-Hand-Over-Documents-Obviscating-As-Usual&highlight=

 

does this mean my agreement with HFC could be void as the intrest rate is 2% out of calculation, according to my calculations ?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken from the OFT guidelines on subprime lending

There should be full transparency about the circumstances in which any

variable rates or charges may change, in particular where they are not

linked to Bank of England base rate”.

Has Swift Advances plc ever told anyone BEFORE they signed their agreement that their loan rates were not linked to the BOE base rate…..I only found out after we had signed ours and then had to go searching for what LIBOR meant…..that’s their kind of transparency

Sparkie

 

 

 

Thanks sparkie for your response and the info above. Despite requesting from Blemain several times what interest rate they are linked by, BOE or Libor, tracker? They still have not given me a satisfactory response. I have sent a final letter requesting this info and have written quite a firm one this time in hope of a correct response.

 

Hopefully I will know soon enough and let you know and as for the Guidelines the OFT set down I don't think these lenders believe that they apply to them to be honest.

 

Thanks again sparkie, as always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I had better expand on why I ask about LOANS MADE SIMPLE .........they do not concern me but more than likely people from N.Ireland who have both CCA regulated and unreguated agreements with Swift Advances plc....NOT First Charge Mortgages.

 

This broker firm has ever held a CCA licence issued by the OFT.

LOANS MADE SIMPLE

Company Type:

Non-Limited

Company Address:

LOANS MADE SIMPLE

Loy Buildings

18 Loy St

COOKSTOWN

BT80 8PE

 

 

 

The OFT rules on credit licences and brokers state that if your loan was introduced by a broker without a licence, the borrower has the right to cease making payments as the agreement is unenforecable ....the OFT licensing rules say this

 

Unlicensed trading is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

In addition, if any of your customers were to default on a payment, you would not be able to enforce a credit agreement that you had made while unlicensed, or where an unlicensed credit broker was involved.

 

I have one agreemnet so far totally unenforceable by this rule....if anyone else had their loan set up by this broker ....it is unenforceable...... Swift do not know what is goingbto hit them next and there is a LOT more to come believe me;)

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Additional info
Link to post
Share on other sites

me finks you pee d off wiv swift sparky hehe

can some look at my thread above

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

I think this will answer your question...........If it is not stated as an APR....or other type such as a nominal rate... how can you calculate it is correct and your payments are correct?.

 

sparkie

 

Regina -v- Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 320.

 

4 Apr 2000

Admn

Consumer, Crime, Financial Services

A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract.

 

Hi Sparkie

Sorry thought you meant the court could not enforce. For this of course there would have to be a breach of section 127(3), which would mean that the APR would have to be listed as a prescribed term in schedule 6 of the 1983/1553 regs.

I was aware of the case you sited, lack of APR is a definite section 65 breach but the creditor can apply for an enforcement order under section127(1).

The judge may decide that this is a serious deficiency, based on the amount of prejudice caused as on the case sited, he May also decide it is de minimis.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sparkie

Sorry thought you meant the court could not enforce. For this of course there would have to be a breach of section 127(3), which would mean that the APR would have to be listed as a prescribed term in schedule 6 of the 1983/1553 regs.

I was aware of the case you sited, lack of APR is a definite section 65 breach but the creditor can apply for an enforcement order under section127(1).

The judge may decide that this is a serious deficiency, based on the amount of prejudice caused as on the case sited, he May also decide it is de minimis.

Peter

 

Agree absolutely Peter.....but it is a good argument for unenforceability I think....well worth considering

 

must take the oportunity here to add about Loans Made Simple ....their CCA license lasped January 2009 ....any loans obtained via them after this date ( not Just with Swift ...with anyone ) would be unenforceable..........so if you are a LOans Made Simple customer check the date of your Loan.;)

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree absolutely Peter.....but it is a good argument for unenforceability I think....well worth considering

 

must take the oportunity here to add about Loans Made Simple ....their CCA license lasped January 2009 ....any loans obtained via them after this date ( not Just with Swift ...with anyone ) would be unenforceable..........so if you are a LOans Made Simple customer check the date of your Loan.;)

 

sparkie

 

Hi

Absolutely\ and as the main indicator for the value of a credit bargain, I think it is the way forward for challenging post 2007 loans together with section 140.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I had better expand on why I ask about LOANS MADE SIMPLE .........they do not concern me but more than likely people from N.Ireland who have both CCA regulated and unreguated agreements with Swift Advances plc....NOT First Charge Mortgages.

 

This broker firm has ever held a CCA licence issued by the OFT.

LOANS MADE SIMPLE

Company Type:

Non-Limited

Company Address:

LOANS MADE SIMPLE

Loy Buildings

18 Loy St

COOKSTOWN

BT80 8PE

 

 

 

The OFT rules on credit licences and brokers state that if your loan was introduced by a broker without a licence, the borrower has the right to cease making payments as the agreement is unenforecable ....the OFT licensing rules say this

 

Unlicensed trading is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

In addition, if any of your customers were to default on a payment, you would not be able to enforce a credit agreement that you had made while unlicensed, or where an unlicensed credit broker was involved.

 

I have one agreemnet so far totally unenforceable by this rule....if anyone else had their loan set up by this broker ....it is unenforceable...... Swift do not know what is goingbto hit them next and there is a LOT more to come believe me

 

sparkie

 

Lapsed licence details from OFT website:-

 

CCA Search :: CCA Search Results :: Licence Details

 

 

Application / Licence Details

 

 

 

 

Licence Number: 0548782

Licence Status:Lapsed on 29/01/2009

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

Business Name: N.I. Loans.co.uk Limited

Company Registration Number: NI48776

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit

Consumer hire

Credit brokerage

Credit reference agency

Debt adjusting/counselling

Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:Yes

 

 

Trading Name(s) (Current):

 

Commercial Loans

Made Simple just4loans

just4loans.co.uk

just4loans.com

loans made simple

loans simply

loans-made-simple

loans-made-simple.co.uk

loans-simply

loans-simply.co.uk

loans-simply.com

N.I.Loans

N.I.Loans.co.uk

N.I.Loans.com

ni loans

ni-loans

only4loans

Scot Loans

Scotloans

Scot-Loans

 

Trading Name(s) (Historic):

 

Commercial-Loans-Made-Simple.co.uk

ni-loans.co.uk

ni-loans.co.uk

northern-ireland-loans.co.uk

northern-ireland-loans.com

Scot-Loans.co.uk

irish-loans.com

loans-scotland.co.uk

loans-scotland.com

ni-loans.com

scot-loans.co.uk

irish-loans.co.uk

Scotloans.co.uk

 

Issued Date: 29-Jan-2004

 

 

Legal Formation:

 

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

[Names Removed]

 

Nature of Business:

 

Credit Brokers

 

Current Address(es):

 

Principal Place Of Business: Loy Buildings 18, Loy Street, Cookstown, Tyrone, BT80 8PE

Registered Office: Loy Buildings 18, Loy Street, Cookstown, Tyrone, BT80 8PE

 

Historic Address(es):

 

Principal Place Of Business: 2, Tullagh Road, Cookstown, Tyrone, BT80 8DF

Registered Office: 2, Tullagh Road, Cookstown, Tyrone, BT80 8DF

Edited by alanfromderby
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3992 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...