Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Mathematicians Needed - Help with Credit Agreement Figures


Guest suziedarkness
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5362 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

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

try googling consumer credit solicitors or something similar and see what you get - don't bother with any of the claims companies.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest suziedarkness

Just an update and a bit more advice really.

 

I have contacted a Solicitor who has said that the fact that Welcome wrote a £30,000 on a CCA regulated form is irrelevant.

 

He said that he would need more information to beable to decide whether or not to take the case on. He said the problem is that I would need a barrister on this and if I did not win, even on a no win no fee basis, then I would still have to pay the barrister which could be mega money.

 

I dont really know where to go from here. I am almost certain there must be something untoward with them. Had a call today from them saying that they were passing it on as it has to be resolved.

 

I am going to send a Subject Access Request to see what that brings forth, but other than that, I dont really know what else to do.

 

Any ideas anyone?

 

Suzie

 

Postggj are you out there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Guest suziedarkness

Sorry to drag up this old chestnut again but I really feel like im hitting my head on a brick wall.

 

This agreement with Black Horse. I have had trouble finding a solicitor locally that deals with this type of law so ended up sending the agreement off to one of these companies. (We told you not to I hear you all saying), but I really dont have the knowledge or confidence to do it by myself.

 

Anyhow this company said that they use experienced lawyers blah blah blah and they said that it would not cost me anything as if they find it to be unenforceable then the costs will be paid by the other side, if its not, then I pay nothing.

 

I sent the agreement of weeks ago and after chasing them up before xmas they confirmed that it was unenforceable and they would be writing to Black Horse.

 

They appear to be taking forever to do anything and I have today received a contract from them telling me how much I have to pay. What are they playing at?????? I am not signing it and will probably be telling them to go swivel but I am soooo frustrated. I thought I was getting somewhere, now I feel I back at square one. what can I do? my car is sitting on my drive, no mOT, no insurance, no tax.

 

Suzie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are prepared to tackle it yourself I'm not sure what help we can give you. Josie had already advised not to deal with any claim companies, which you ignored. This seems snotty, but its not meant to, but when advice is ignored it is difficult to offer alternative.

 

If you are prepared for the hard slog then there is no reason why you can't tackle this head on yourself. It is never easy with any agreement that is considered unenforceable as the creditor will always say it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

Yes I know what you are saying surprise, I tried loads of solicitors locally and most did not deal in that field, the couple that did wanted over £200 for an initial consultation which I just dont have.

 

I guess I will have to tackle myself but to be honest, I dont even really know why its unenforceable and I would look a complete idiot if I get it wrong. I just dont know where to start.

 

suzie

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think you can do this yourself with help of the experts and I can see from some of the posters that they know what they are talking about. Wait and see what advice others offer later. I know the figures are wrong making it unenforceable but there are also other things which could be flagged up at the sametime.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a look and I get: £6295 paid off as 59 x £150.27 + 1 x £225.27 gives a total cost of credit of £2796.20 which is what the agreement says but an APR of 16.6% - this is using Dualcalc

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

Does that mean anything dugnificant?

 

What is your opinion with the Acceptance Fee being included in the total charge for credit but not the purchase fee?

 

Suzie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not as the interest rate is not a prescribed term for fixed-sum credit agreements unless they fall within the exceptions in para 9 of schedule 1 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements ) regulations 1983, which this one doesn't.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

Back to Black Horse agreement. I am very rapidly sending myself insane with this. It has been said in earlier posts that the figures do not add up. I totally agree with this. I have put the figures in Dualcalc in different ways but it is one big puzzle to me. Can someone please help me out here. I know that something is amiss but no matter how hard I look, I cannot see it.

 

Okay, inital amount of credit on agreement is £6295.00, Hire Purchase charge is £2,576.20 then there is an acceptance fee of £145.00 and a purchase fee of £75.00. It says on the agreement that there are 59 payments of £150.27 and 1 final payment of £225.27 to include the £75.00 purchase fee. There is no mention of paying the £145.00 acceptance fee with 1st instalment as is usual (sorry folks I was so sure I paid this with 1st instalment but I checked and had not, I was confused as the norm is to pay with 1st instalment), anyway so it must mean that the £145.00 is spread over the 60 instalments. thats me thinking allowed, now this is where I am confusing myself.

 

Dualcalc

I put £6295.00 in the loan amount, entered regular repayments as £150.27 x 60 (I am forgetting about the £75 for now as I am trying to establish whether the £145.00 has been included in the calculations for interest) and the results are as follows:

 

Total amount advanced £6,295.00

Total amount payable £9,016.20

Total charge for credit £2,721.20

 

APR 16.3%

 

Now I have worked out that as the £145.00 acceptance Fee is spread over 60 months as there has been no other option to discharge this fee, it works out to £2.41 per month so if I minus this from the £150.27 it makes the repayments £147.85 for the loan and HP charge. when I put these figs in Dualcalc this is how it works out

 

Loan amount £6,295.00

60 x £147.85

Total amount payable £8,871.00

Total charge for credit £2,576.00

(this is the hire purchase charge on the agreement, strange!!)

 

APR 15.4%

 

As the first set of figures is nearer (APR on agreement 16.5%), does this mean that they have included the acceptance fee when calculating interest?

 

Suzie

 

Loan amount £6,295.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzie

 

I repeated your calcs and got te same aas you did. Both are reasonable and I think it indicates that the £145 doesn't come in to these calculations at all - either it was paid with the first payment (which youay it wasn't) or as a seperate paymenbt or not at all.

 

THe APR of 16.3% is correct and the statement of it as 16.5% is within the tolerance allowed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

Ahh yes Steven, but the £145.00 does appear to come into the calculation because to get the APR of 16.3% you have to include the repayment for it.

 

what I am trying to get at (not very well I dont think lol!!) is that the Acceptance fee cannot be treated as credit so it has to be dealt with seperately. Therefore, if you breakdown the monthly payments for the fee and the loan they are as follows : 60 x £147.85 and 60 x £2.41 to the true monthly figure for the Loan is £147.85. If you put this into Dualcal you only get an APR of 15.4% which means that they have included the Acceptance Fee to get an APR of 16.3% and surely this is wrong.

 

Surprise came up with similar calculations on an earlier post, and she also said that they have included the Acceptance Fee in the interest calculations. Not sure if she used Dualcalc or another method.

 

Can anyone else see where I am coming from or am I completely barking up the wrong tree?

 

Suzie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzie I have tried to explain this before to you, they can just say the first payment included the acceptance fee ie: £145 fee + £5.27 payment.

 

Unless you ask them for a written calculation as to how they worked out the interest charges and using what flat rate you will never prove it.

 

I know my agreement is similar, but on mine they actually admit they have charged interest on the fee but do not show it in the prescribed terms as a seperate agreement so it is incorrect.

 

Again as I said before I believe they have charged you interest on it, but there is no way in proving it from the document as it would make so little difference to the APR.

 

If you want to do something about it write to them asking how they calculated the interest using what flat rate, they will probably be stupid enough to just admit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest suziedarkness

Thanks for that Cosalt, that is probably my best bet and will do letter later on.

 

Was your HP with Black Horse or another company and did you get that confirmation from the company about them adding interest to the acceptance fee or is it obvious from the agreement form?

 

Sorry I cant remember your post exactly and I have to admit now that all this is starting to do my head in!! :)

 

suzie

Link to post
Share on other sites

My agreement is not with black horse,.

 

They told me over the phone they had spread it and added interest ( although I know this does not mean much )

 

But it is obvious on the agreement, they even explain how they have calculated the interest but do not show in the prescribed terms that interest has been charged, which means the figures are wrong.

 

Just get that info of them and I think you could be on to a winner !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
O dont worry Atwozee, I wont loose my nerve. I have been ripped off big time over the last few years, trouble is I have only just realised as I am learning my rights thanks to all you great people.

 

I have definately only paid the £145.00 once.

 

I paid the car showroom £1200 deposit upfront, (by way of a part exchange), which is shown on the agreement. Then Black Horse took the first payment by direct debit from my bank account of £295.29 1 month later which was $150.27 monthly instalment plus £145.00. Of this I am 200% positive.

 

I will point out though that I did not know I had to pay an arrangement fee at the time of signing the agreement, my fault I guess, I should read what im signing. It wasnt until BH sent a copy of the agreement with a welcome letter that I read it and noticed I had to pay extra.

 

Suzie

 

 

Hi s

 

i have just gone through the agreemtnRepayments

1 At 150.27

57 at 150.27

1 including fee at 225.27

 

Tap including deposit of 10291

APR 16.54%

 

This is ok all the fees are in the right places and i was depressed BUt

now i see you paid the fee of 145 in with the first payment as an addition is that right.

Yousee in order to tget the APR stated above, the fee has already been included wihin the total charge for crdit and spread amongs the paymnets.

So you will have paid it twice.

The effect of this would make the APR rise to 17.75%

 

Thisis slightly complicted argument because the agreement itself is correct if the repayments were taken as they should. So you will have to prove that they were not.

 

So you have two major arguments one is that the APR is incorrect this is a major flaw and may get yur agreement adjusted by the court and certainly makes it enforceabe only by an order of the court under section 65 of the act but it also means that your payments are incorrect and these are a prescribed term which as you know in an agreement dated before the 6 april 2007 woud render the agreement unenforceable under section 127(3) of the act.

Good luck Peter

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball
spelling sucks big time maths is good though

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

  • 5 months later...

Could some of the mathmatically minded just check my figures please.

I have a similar agreement to susiedarkness as follows

 

key financial information

 

amount of credit £22214.52

total amount payable £ 28927.40

1 repayment of £613.54 and 58 repayments of £478.54 and 1 final repayment of £558.54

apr 11.5%

 

Other financial information

 

cash price of goods £21915.52

cash price of gap insurance £299.00

total cash price £22214.52

interest £6497.88

credit facility fee part a £135

credit facility fee prt b £80

Total charge for credit £6712.88

 

interest rate 10.6% per annum

Interest charges for the duration of this agreement are calculated on and added to the amount of credit at the outset

 

This is a fixed sum loan

 

The part a charge for credit was definitely paid with the 1st payment

 

Thanks for any help

Link to post
Share on other sites

First payment is 478.54 + 135, last payment is 478.54+80 (ie the credit facility is paid in 2 bits, one with first and one with last payment). Using these figures, rate of interest is 11.1% and APR is 12%. So APR is wrong, in fact it is outside the tolerance allowed by the regulations. THis makes the agreement improperly executed and only enforceable bya court. However, for enforceability by a court, the APR doesn't matter. Therefore a court could choose to enforce it.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First payment is 478.54 + 135, last payment is 478.54+80 (ie the credit facility is paid in 2 bits, one with first and one with last payment). Using these figures, rate of interest is 11.1% and APR is 12%. So APR is wrong, in fact it is outside the tolerance allowed by the regulations. THis makes the agreement improperly executed and only enforceable bya court. However, for enforceability by a court, the APR doesn't matter. Therefore a court could choose to enforce it.

 

Hi Steven

This is very helpful ..thank you

How can I lay this information out to show to a judge or solicitors.

 

I would like to use this info along with other factors that are wrong with my agreement

 

rep added

 

SB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just do it as I have, I think.

 

Additional info: tolerance of APR calculation is in schedule 7 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. The terms required for an agreement to be properly executd are in schedule 1 and the terms for a court to be able to enforce the agreement are in schedule 6.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steven

I am still unsure about the calculations and how to set them out.

When I put the total cash amount borrowed and interest rate into this loan calculator

 

Loan repayments calculator | This is Money

 

The repayments seem to be correct and there doesnt seem to be any interest charged on the 2 part credit facility fee.

 

Please can you explain how you worked it out. Sorry for being dim :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...