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

[Peterbard]

What if the interest rate charged (before any variation) differs from what's stated in the executed agreement?......now then.

Hi

well yes now you have a question.

 

To me an agreement is properly executed when the last piece of information(sig) is put on the agreement. Since Section 65? 237 says is not properly executed, i would presume that incorrect information would have to be on it at that point in time. since the incorrect charge can only be applied after that point i would not say it was a breach.

Peter

[basa48]

I think i may have slightly missunderstood your point.

 

If an agreement has a vereable rate interest it does not make any difference to the enforceability of the agreement. It has to be correct at the moment of execution.

 

Peter

Talking about credit agreements. The rate of interest is a prescribed term (not APR), to be given as "A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement".

 

How can the quoted interest, i.e. a number, any number be incorrect? Compared to what? It is a single finite term. It stands on its own. If there is a number there in the agreement however it is expressed then that is the interest rate - end of. Or am I missing something.

 

I'm not even sure that the lender actually charging a different rate in fact would invalidate the agreement.

[Peterbard]

Talking about credit agreements. The rate of interest is a prescribed term (not APR), to be given as "A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement".

 

How can the quoted interest, i.e. a number, any number be incorrect? Compared to what? It is a single finite term. It stands on its own. If there is a number there in the agreement however it is expressed then that is the interest rate - end of. Or am I missing something.

 

I'm not even sure that the lender actually charging a different rate in fact would invalidate the agreement.

 

The apr is derived ffrom the total charge for credit, the total charge for credit is derived from the amount of interest plus other charges, the amount of interest is derived from the tota credit and the interest rate therefore the APR is dependant on the interest.

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

B

If you Want to check your credit card apr against your monthly interest rate

The formula is (( Monthly rate/100)+1)^12-1)*100

The brackets may want fiddling with this is from memory but I think this is correct.

This will only work if there are no othere charges in the tcc as on most credit cards

 

Peter

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

B

If you Want to check your credit card apr against your monthly interest rate

The formula is (( Monthly rate/100)+1)^12-1)*100

The brackets may want fiddling with this is from memory but I think this is correct.

This will only work if there are no othere charges in the tcc as on most credit cards

 

Peter

Peter

 

If anyone wants mee to break this down to formula cells for excel just ask

 

 

Peter

[Fingers60]

i see you are continuing your campaign "over the road" Peter ?!

 

 

 

Hi

 

Yes i posted this on the egg thread over the road.

 

Noody else thought it at all relevant then.

 

Strange world

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by pt2537

yeah

 

but mines better constructed, and targets the proper construction of the term and the accompanying terms and conditions

 

our argument is that the clause causes serious confusion as those terms reveal that the “Individual Limit” is supposed to be a limit which the Claimant has chosen for the account (as to which there is no evidence). Condition 3 says that that “Individual Limit” will

be notified by Egg to the Claimant (even though the agreement records that

the Claimant has chosen it) but only if it is different from the Approved Limit. If

that does not leave the average consumer bemused one wonders what will?

 

The Consumer is going to be even more confused when she sees her first

account statement which tells her what her ‘credit limit’ is and does not even

mention the approved limit and/or the individual limit that she notified Egg

about and then Egg notified her about (unless of course it was not different

from the approved limit in which case they would not notify her at all about

what she notified them about). It is unnecessary and confusing.

 

Hi wont comment on this unless you really want me to.

 

Exept to say.

nope wont do it

 

Lets wait

unless

 

MMMMM

Last edited by peterbard; 4th August 2010 at 18:09:PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

[Peterbard]

See your comtinuing your campaign againstme over here

[Fingers60]

See your comtinuing your campaign againstme over here

 

Its nothing personal but following the Kneale judgement i would rather see both you and PT posting on this thread not just you...

 

Like yourself PT was a great resource and him leaving the site couldnt have come at a worst time for some of us...

[basa48]

 

You know you dont have to dissagree with everything i say.

 

just a though

 

Peter

 

I'm not that driven that I would disagree just because it's you.

 

I will disagree with anyone and anything that I think is wrong, mis-stated or misleading. As I would hope they would disagree with me.

 

The overall aim is to arrive at the correct conclusions whether they be mine or yours.

[Peterbard]

I'm not that driven that I would disagree just because it's you.

 

I will disagree with anyone and anything that I think is wrong, mis-stated or misleading. As I would hope they would disagree with me.

 

The overall aim is to arrive at the correct conclusions whether they be mine or yours.

 

Absolutely

Everyone must have the right to question and agree or dissagree with anything that is stated on here.

 

This was my problem.

 

Petr

[the_shadow]

Peter,

 

Please dont rake this up all again.

 

S.

[Peterbard]

Peter,

 

Please dont rake this up all again.

 

S.[/

 

OK

 

Just responding to the OP.

 

Buti See your point

 

Peter

[paulwlton]

Hi

well yes now you have a question.

 

To me an agreement is properly executed when the last piece of information(sig) is put on the agreement. Since Section 65? 237 says is not properly executed, i would presume that incorrect information would have to be on it at that point in time. since the incorrect charge can only be applied after that point i would not say it was a breach.

Peter

 

If the interest charged differs from the interest stated at the date of execution then there's a breach and the agreement is unenforceable in my opinion however, one would need the first statement to check the interest stated and therefore applied.

[RobinWayRobinme]

Further question on interest rates on credit card agreements that only become executed when creditor has decided what type of account to consider providing or what the credit limit may be and what the interest rate will be. No credit limit or interest rate is in app form/unexecuted agreement and it is the unexecuted agreement that becomes executed when signed by creditor. I seem to be seeing conflicting arguments now about what is and is not a proper prescibed term for the rate of interest and what is not for credit cards. I have no prob (I think) with APR issue.

R

[lexis200]

Anyone have any thoughts on me not having dated an application? There is no date anywhere at all on the app (a Cap1 special); nothing printed, stamped or written by either me or them, and I can't think this is good/right?

 

I'm just wondering if it's worth adding this to my list of things that are wrong with it, as I'm having to format a letter to Bryan Carter whose now stuck his nose into this issue:mad:

[RobinWayRobinme]

Hi lexis

I have one even better than that. I put a date on one of mine that I got wrong by 40 years (xx/xx/1961). Any thoughts from anyone on this also appreciated

Anyone have any thoughts on me not having dated an application? There is no date anywhere at all on the app (a Cap1 special); nothing printed, stamped or written by either me or them, and I can't think this is good/right?

 

I'm just wondering if it's worth adding this to my list of things that are wrong with it, as I'm having to format a letter to Bryan Carter whose now stuck his nose into this issue:mad:

[lexis200]

Wow, that's impressive:)

 

No ideas I'm afraid, but at least it shows how much attention they pay to these things. I'm seriously considering signing something 'minnie mouse' and seeing if it's picked up:rolleyes:

[Peterbard]

If the interest charged differs from the interest stated at the date of execution then there's a breach and the agreement is unenforceable in my opinion however, one would need the first statement to check the interest stated and therefore applied.

Hi Paul

Sorry dont agree

 

The purpose of section 60 61 is to ensure that all pertinant information is on the agrement at the time of execution if not it is improperly executed.

 

If another amount is charged after this time it cannot be said that this is a breach of that reauirement.

 

It is however a breach of the agreement, but farfrom wanting the agreement to be unenforceable you sould want to enforce it against the creditor for charging you the wrong rate of interrest.

 

Peter

[diddydicky]

if the rate of interest charged on the first statment - assuming this occurred before the creditor notified the debtor of any changes in the interest rate- which would be a variation of the original agreement- then clearly this could be used by a defendant if he is contesting that the PT's offered by the creditor as being the original PT's were no such thing

 

which i think is what Paul was referring to

[Peterbard]

if the rate of interest charged on the first statment - assuming this occurred before the creditor notified the debtor of any changes in the interest rate- which would be a variation of the original agreement- then clearly this could be used by a defendant if he is contesting that the PT's offered by the creditor as being the original PT's were no such thing

 

which i think is what Paul was referring to

Hi

 

I see what you mean but it wouldn’t work I am afraid.

 

Proper execution means that both sic=des should be fully aware of the details of the credit bargain they are entering into at that point.

I

f either one breaches those conditions at any time after that it does not make the agreement improperly executed it means the agreement has been breached.

 

I think it is the time element that is causing confusion, really it doesn’t matter to the CCA if the breach occurs two minutes or two months after the execution.

 

For instance say you take a fixed sum loan out for say 12 months then eight months down the line the creditor takes an extra twenty quid out of you bank on repayment day. You ring him up and he says we have increased you repayments and brought forward your repayment date.

Would you say that because these were not the prescribed terms that you signed up for the agreement was improperly executed, no.

 

The agreement would have been breached because the terms you agreed to where not being followed you would say ,”put the money back in my bank or I will sue under the CCA and the OFT will have your licence”

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Sorry completely missed your pooint. left the post up there anyway cos ait may be useful to someone else.

 

Yes i can see how that may work, if there was being a judement made on ballance of probabilities it would certainly help swing them in your direction.

Petr

[paulwlton]

Hi

 

Sorry completely missed your pooint. left the post up there anyway cos ait may be useful to someone else.

 

Yes i can see how that may work, if there was being a judement made on ballance of probabilities it would certainly help swing them in your direction.

Petr

 

Similarly you agree to a fixed rate loan the credit being £10k however, the money lender only pays £9980 into your account, therefore it could be argued that the amount of credit is misstated and the agreement unenforceable but, as Peter rightly states charging an increased monthly amount would only be a breach in contract.

[Peterbard]

HI

 

NO i tink it woould still be breachof contract.

There is this though.

Section 57 of the act says that a debtor has the wright to withdraw from an agreement before the bargain is "made".

 

Proff Goode discribes the term "Made" as being to represent when the deal is completed, ie the goods are delivered .

 

It could be argued that this has never been carried out in your insstance, that is only 8000 lf it has been delivered to the debtor, so in theory the debtor should still be abkle to cancell under section 69, with just oral notice.

 

Peter

[pt2537]

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

[Fingers60]

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

 

Welcome back to your thread PT!