why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement

[pt2537]

not back, sorry, just making a point which has been considered by a judge in an attempt to clarify and assist,

[Fingers60]

not back, sorry, just making a point which has been considered by a judge in an attempt to clarify and assist,

 

ok cool, pop back and make a point anytime you wish sir !

[Peterbard]

delfi101 went to the same Court room that Rankine was decided in

 

The trial Judge HHJ Worster, held that the fact the rate of interest stated on the terms was materially different to the rate charged on the first statement was a material breach of the 1974 Act and that therefore s61 was not complied with and the agreement was improperly executed

 

he has a htread on here, the order is also posted and i have the transcript as i was the file handler

 

Coulld you provide alnk to that judgement please.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

delfi101 went to the same Court room that Rankine was decided in

 

The trial Judge HHJ Worster, held that the fact the rate of interest stated on the terms was materially different to the rate charged on the first statement was a material breach of the 1974 Act and that therefore s61 was not complied with and the agreement was improperly executed

 

 

HI

 

THanks for that PT

Not that i dont believe you

But how about this

If you can prove what you have just posted, that a judje ruled that any action made after an agreement was executed effected the enforceability of an agrement under section 127 i will retire form posting on here and elsewhere perminantly.

 

It would mean all i know about the CCA is incorrect.

 

Must be worth gouing thruough yoour files and pinning up the judgement hey.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

delfi101 went to the same Court room that Rankine was decided in

 

The trial Judge HHJ Worster, held that the fact the rate of interest stated on the terms was materially different to the rate charged on the first statement was a material breach of the 1974 Act and that therefore s61 was not complied with and the agreement was improperly executed

 

 

HI

 

THanks for that PT

Not that i dont believe you

But how about this

If you can prove what you have just posted, that a judje ruled that any action made after an agreement was executed effected the enforceability of an agrement under section 127 i will retire form posting on here and elsewhere perminantly.

 

It would mean all i know about the CCA is incorrect.

 

Must be worth gouing thruough yoour files and pinning up the judgement hey.

 

Peter

 

Just tp add

 

I will need case number and date of hearing please lets keep it friendly.

 

Peter

[citizenB]

 

Just tp add

 

I will need case number and date of hearing please lets keep it friendly.

 

Peter

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?244025-Delfi101-et-al-vs-Weightmans-Phoenix-HFC-***WON***

 

If it isnt on the thread, then leave a message for Delfi

[Peterbard]

HI Thnak you Citezen

 

Cmn

 

This just poves what i had affirmed in respnse to DD point eirlier.

 

You can use an incorrectly stated rate on an agreement to challenge the authenticity of a reproduced agreement and influence the ballance of probabilities.

 

That is not the same.

 

What you were saying tis that you can use it to say the prescribed term on the real orriginal is incorrect. A different thing completeley.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

Just to clarify

This from Delfis thread

“With the help of our own PT and a barrister that he capably briefed we have just handed the above their arses on a plate.

 

Firstly, the Circuit Judge ruled that the statements that they had provided demonstrably had a different interest rate to those in the alleged T&C's and that demonstrated that the T&C's were not related to the 'agreement' Game over.

The Barrister demonstrated that the document was not on the balance of probabilities a copy of the originals that should have been there at execution.”

This is a bit different than this PT unless you have another case in mind

“The trial Judge HHJ Worster, held that the fact the rate of interest stated on the terms was materially different to the rate charged on the first statement was a material breach of the 1974 Act and that therefore s61 was not complied with and the agreement was improperly executed”

The Barrister prove that the T and Cs presented where not those at the original execution, thereby adding to the probability that there wher nonre there at all.

Entirely different to an incorrect charge issued on a first statement making a prescribed term incorrect..

Ass stated earlier Section60 61 set out the items that must be available for the debtor to see at the time of execution nothing else. When you challenge an agreement you are saying that some of those items weren’t there or where incorrect.

You cannot use an a action taken after the execution as proof of this.

Peter

[pt2537]

HI Thnak you Citezen

 

Cmn

 

This just poves what i had affirmed in respnse to DD point eirlier.

 

You can use an incorrectly stated rate on an agreement to challenge the authenticity of a reproduced agreement and influence the ballance of probabilities.

 

That is not the same.

 

What you were saying tis that you can use it to say the prescribed term on the real orriginal is incorrect. A different thing completeley.

 

Peter

 

No, the Claimants evidence was not that it was a reconstitution or reproduction, the Claimants written and oral evidence was that this is the "original" agreement

 

The rate quoted was materially different from the statement rate, and the agreement provided fixed rate for 6 months

 

As i said i was in Court with Delfi and Simon Vaughan our counsel, and i sat through HHJ worsters judgment on the agreement and the rate of interest, in fact Judge Worster found in our favour on all points raised in the defence and counterclaim.

[Peterbard]

No, the Claimants evidence was not that it was a reconstitution or reproduction, the Claimants written and oral evidence was that this is the "original" agreement

 

The rate quoted was materially different from the statement rate, and the agreement provided fixed rate for 6 months

 

As i said i was in Court with Delfi and Simon Vaughan our counsel, and i sat through HHJ worsters judgment on the agreement and the rate of interest, in fact Judge Worster found in our favour on all points raised in the defence and counterclaim.

 

It doesnt matter paul

 

THe point is the judge ruled that the document was probably not the one signed at execution,not that the interest rate ws made incorrect because it was misstated on a following statement.

Peter

[pt2537]

It doesnt matter paul

 

THe point is the judge ruled that the document was probably not the one signed at execution,not that the interest rate ws made incorrect because it was misstated on a following statement.

Peter

im not arguing ,

 

but i was in court when the judgment was handed down,

[bustthematrix]

Hi folks, for this to make sense, the facts have to be on the table for all to see. Without those facts, we may find ourselves arguing about the wrong things.

 

If the interest rate is wrong or incorrect, it will be wrong for a reason. The way we eventually find out that it may be wrong is what determines what actions we can take - yes?

 

It appears to me that the only wy to find out is through backward computation by looking at payment details on loan/credit statements, either annual or monthly. If payments don't tally up with the stated interest rates, then it suggests that the interest rate was either wrongly stated or it has changed since been stated.

 

So to clarify both points of view, may I ask Pt2537 and PeterB to clarify and confirm please? This would really help me (and I suspect others) not to get lost in the detail of this discussion with reference to the following illustrations:-

 

If a fixed rate loan is executed and the interest rate (not APR) is stated as 15.00% annually, exactly where or how would an issue of precribed terms arise in this case?

 

If a variable rate loan is executed and the interest rate (not APR) is stated as 15.00% annually, exactly where or how would an issue of precribed terms arise in this case?

 

If a credit card is executed and the interest rate (not APR) is initially stated as 15.00% annually, exactly where or how would an issue of precribed terms arise in this case?

 

Cheers

[Peterbard]

Hi folks, for this to make sense, the facts have to be on the table for all to see. Without those facts, we may find ourselves arguing about the wrong things.

 

If the interest rate is wrong or incorrect, it will be wrong for a reason. The way we eventually find out that it may be wrong is what determines what actions we can take - yes?

 

It appears to me that the only wy to find out is through backward computation by looking at payment details on loan/credit statements, either annual or monthly. If payments don't tally up with the stated interest rates, then it suggests that the interest rate was either wrongly stated or it has changed since been stated.

 

So to clarify both points of view, may I ask Pt2537 and PeterB to clarify and confirm please? This would really help me (and I suspect others) not to get lost in the detail of this discussion with reference to the following illustrations:-

 

If a fixed rate loan is executed and the interest rate (not APR) is stated as 15.00% annually, exactly where or how would an issue of precribed terms arise in this case?

 

If a variable rate loan is executed and the interest rate (not APR) is stated as 15.00% annually, exactly where or how would an issue of precribed terms arise in this case?

 

If a credit card is executed and the interest rate (not APR) is initially stated as 15.00% annually, exactly where or how would an issue of precribed terms arise in this case?

 

Cheers

Hi

On a fixed sum loan the interest rate is not a prescribed term.

However the APR is mathematically linked to both the repayments and the total credit which are.

An issue of incorrect execution of the agreement must be because the debtor has been provided with insufficient or incorrect information st the time of signing, anything the creditor does after that, that breaches these requirements is a breach of the contract, the same as if the debtor had defaulted. Would be.

peter

[Peterbard]

im not arguing ,

 

but i was in court when the judgment was handed down,

 

hipaul

 

i have absolutely no doubt you where

 

peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

Having said all this I must say it is very encouraging to see that you can successfully challenge the authenticity of t and cs in this manner.

As I said I new it was a possibility but had not seen it done

peter

[noomill060]

PT has filleted many a creditor's donkey, PB.

 

Where the **** have you been?

[Peterbard]

PT has filleted many a creditor's donkey, PB.

 

Where the **** have you been?

 

Hi noo

 

Nice to speak, how long you got,health problems, then problems with my big mouth the usual..

 

Peter

[means2anend]

PB

 

do u understand????

[Peterbard]

More than you

 

Unfortunately

[patrickq1]

reading between bus and pb i can understand what has been said so tommorrow i will post up an agreement of HFC and it seems i have 2 different APRs but let you both look and see what is wrong with the agreement that should help us all understand

patrickq1

hi pt n donki

[paulwlton]

Interesting stage. It appears the judge is requiring the pursuers to prove that the prescribed terms were on the back of the application.

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219283-Help-with-Clydesdale-cca-please/page5

[Peterbard]

Interesting stage. It appears the judge is requiring the pursuers to prove that the prescribed terms were on the back of the application.

Hi

Scottish courts have generally in the past been a bit more demanding on creditors regarding proof lets hope it is so in this case.

 

Peter

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219283-Help-with-Clydesdale-cca-please/page5[/u

[bustthematrix]

Hi

On a fixed sum loan the interest rate is not a prescribed term.

However the APR is mathematically linked to both the repayments and the total credit which are.

An issue of incorrect execution of the agreement must be because the debtor has been provided with insufficient or incorrect information st the time of signing, anything the creditor does after that, that breaches these requirements is a breach of the contract, the same as if the debtor had defaulted. Would be.

peter

PB Thanks for your reply. If you don't mind, in order to be totally clear about what you are saying:), do you mind responding to my original post #2262 point by point? Thank you.

[bustthematrix]

Hi

On a fixed sum loan the interest rate is not a prescribed term.

However the APR is mathematically linked to both the repayments and the total credit which are.

An issue of incorrect execution of the agreement must be because the debtor has been provided with insufficient or incorrect information st the time of signing, anything the creditor does after that, that breaches these requirements is a breach of the contract, the same as if the debtor had defaulted. Would be.

peter

PB, as a follow on to my above post, are you saying in your above post that there are NO circumstances under which a CCA can be deemed unenforceable on the basis of the Interest Rate or APR???

[pt2537]

PB, as a follow on to my above post, are you saying in your above post that there are NO circumstances under which a CCA can be deemed unenforceable on the basis of the Interest Rate or APR???

the rate of interest can be a prescribed term for a fixed sum loan agreement, if the circumstances set out in schedule 1 para 9 a-c are met

 

so while almost correct, there are circumstances where a rate of interest is a prescribed term