Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM   1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack  Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached   2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00.  The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month.   3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement,   Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us.   Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement   9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate   4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:-   a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement number 756050. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     Thw total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by Firrst class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges ]= 5.  A the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or  alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage.   Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs.   Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024   What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • 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

Payments made under mistake ??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5621 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

If a loan (or perhaps even a credit card), agreement is later found by yourself to be unenforceable, then would this mean that any payments made prior to your realisation, were actually made whilst acting under a mistaken presumption?

 

ie: You made the payments under pressure from the provider, who insisted upon all such payments, by relying upon (even threatening to enforce) an agreement that was invalid and unenforceable.

 

Thus your payments were made under duress and pressure by the provider, who claimed that the agreement was valid, whilst in fact it was not.

 

If so, as I believe you can claim that you paid whilst acting under a mistake, we should be able to seek redress for such.

 

 

Here are some thoughts and discussion from another thread,

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Here are posts from other thread:

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoman

 

IMHO,

If an agreement is deemed as having been unenforceable all along, then any payments you as the supposed debtor actually made, would have been made (under duress and pressure from the creditor or DCA) as the result of a "mistake".

 

ie: you were making payments to them under the mistaken presumption (due to their own assertions) that they were actually entitled to such.

 

Therefore, you should then also be entitled to claim all such payments back, as they were made whilst you were acting under a "mistake".

 

Also... in such circumstances, could one also claim for restitution of your further subsequent losses as a result of this mistake (ie: any interest incurred on the accounts used to make the payments, and/or losses from having been deprived your use of such sums) ?

 

... and... also claim for restitution of the creditors subsequent gains from their use of such sums ?

 

 

Any thoughts anyone ??

 

 

PM

 

Quote:

Originally posted by Paulwlton

 

IMO the mistake argument is devoid of merit. The debtor signed and received a copy of the agreement at the outset and therefore had the option of making payments under the terms of the agreement whether enforceable or not.

 

Paul

 

 

Quote:

Originally posted by Photoman

 

ah... but did they actually have a choice ?

 

The creditor would in all likelihood have insisted upon a DD arrangement from the outset, plus they would also have actively chased the debtor for missed payments by citing and relying upon the terms of the agreement.... which despite the creditors assertions was not actually enforceable.

 

Thus, the debtor was being made to make payments against an unenforceable agreement, by acting under the mistaken presumption that (due to the creditors assertions) they had an obligation to.

 

PM

 

Quote:

Originally posted by Paulwlton

 

Yes they had a choice - they either pay or don't pay on an uneforceable agreement. There are lots of members who have chosen not to pay because they have found their agreements to be unenforceable now that they've been educated. I know of a person who signed an unenforceable higher purchase agreement and never paid a penny from the outset... the gift from the creditor was a new motorhome.

 

I think we're going slightly off topic here...don't want to distract from the multiple agreement discussion.

 

PW

 

 

Quote:

Originally posted by Photoman

 

Paul,

 

I still think there is some good merit in my argument.

 

My point is the fact that the debtor was not aware they had a choice.

 

That was, perhaps not until such time as now, when they finally realise that the agreement was in fact unenforceable all along.

 

Thus, all payments prior to your becoming aware of such a fact, were made whilst acting under a mistaken presumption.

 

Okay,

Whilst I still maintain this view, and still want and welcome comments from others, I also agree we are going off topic.

 

Perhaps I will start a thread on this point, and post a link here.

 

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody gonna comment ??

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good read Photoman. I briefly looked over this a while back, but didn't finish it.

 

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-928753-8.pdf

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

Thanks UK,

 

Have partly read the book too..... however the only versions I have only ever seen online are shortened abridged versions.... likewise the link you've posted only goes as far as the first chapter, and the juicy bits I suppose require that you buy the book.

 

Suppose, only right really, copyright and authors royalties and all that.

 

What's your own learned view on the matter ?

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is an interesting thread and i hope you don't think I am going a bit off subject.

I was wondering why a loan being voidable can be applied after settlement and could the section 18 issues be used in proving a loan to be voidable. I have read some material that says any serious misrepresentation can make loans voidable...

 

The differance here being that you cannot claim the gift but get everything back apart from the bare bones debt..ie the ppi erc all payments made etc...

 

If someone was going to try the above challenge.... ie giving merit to the mistake argument.... would it be usefull to ask the court to find the loans voidable in the event the judge find no merit in the "mistake" argument...

 

cheers

 

micko

 

keep up the good work

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is an interesting thread and i hope you don't think I am going a bit off subject.

I was wondering why a loan being voidable can be applied after settlement and could the section 18 issues be used in proving a loan to be voidable. I have read some material that says any serious misrepresentation can make loans voidable...

 

The differance here being that you cannot claim the gift but get everything back apart from the bare bones debt..ie the ppi erc all payments made etc...

 

If someone was going to try the above challenge.... ie giving merit to the mistake argument.... would it be usefull to ask the court to find the loans voidable in the event the judge find no merit in the "mistake" argument...

 

cheers

 

micko

 

keep up the good work

 

 

My point here is; That once the loan is found to have been unenforceable all along, then you claim that as you've only just discovered the mistake, then any past payments were made whilst acting under said mistake.

 

You then claim for e refund of any payments made whilst acting under the mistake, and for a restitution of a/ your subsequent losses, and b/ their subsequent gains..

 

Obviously you need to have the contract proven as unenforceable first, and should look at the multiple agreements thread as an example of situations where this is the case.

 

regards

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do essentially agree with what you are saying but in cases of unenforceability the original loan amount is kept by the lender plus return of every single payment made ie the loan is like a gift ...and part of the punishment intended by the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Just thinking that they would argue against the merit of the "mistake" argument stating that the contract must be alive to be unenforceable ie you cannot enforce something that is not there anymore...

 

I was merely thinking proving a loan to be voidable would be a possible second best option....

 

micko

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm, mistake is a knotty issue and one that i cannot due to time constraints sit down and type out a full reply

 

However,

 

Is recovery of monies paid by mistake possible? Yes

 

Would an agreement which you after 4,5 or 6 years say, find to be defective give you the right to claim restitution of interest payments? yes unquestionably

 

lets not forget the CCA 1974 itself gives a right of recoivery of monies paid towards a secured loan where the agreement is defective

 

when i get a mo, i will post some useful stuff

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been many threads on the subject but it only makes it unenforceable through court of law and many have tried and failed to get monies back.

 

Although I do agree with you and believe it the own lenders fault I ceertainly wouldn't advise anyone to try and claim back the payments but very eager to see what Paul will post later :D

 

 

Ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I have used this argument is as a threat to DCAs and OCs who want to carry on with their threatening behaviour after admitting to no agreement at all. I've never heard from (either of) them again, which I am happy to accept.

 

Those who have continued with their threats may well find this tested in the courts in due course.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PM

 

I was looking into using the Fraud Act 2006.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

 

An attack on a Financial Institution using the Limitation Act 1980 also going back more than 6 years could be achieved also. Maybe PT or X20 would be the ones to give their points of view on this.

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

There has been many threads on the subject but it only makes it unenforceable through court of law and many have tried and failed to get monies back.

 

Although I do agree with you and believe it the own lenders fault I ceertainly wouldn't advise anyone to try and claim back the payments but very eager to see what Paul will post later :D

 

 

Ida x

 

hi ida and thanks for your comments could you tell me if the people who tried and failed have got threads on here as it would certainly be usefull to see the arguments used against it...

 

many thanks

 

micko

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read much on this also I would say that without a doubt the mistake elements do offer remit.

But as always,a hearing taking place in the SCT will probably be influenced on the day by the Judge-we have seen so many who remain unsympathetic to lenders who are just being evasive.

But if there was a clear watertight case presented,then it could be another matter.

Equally the mistake aspects could be applied to many areas.

In 2006 one member was refunded his loan in its entirity which he was given to address penalty charges on his business account-I believe that his defence used mistake in his arguement.

I think in the early days of CAG there were a few such cases but were tied up with confidentiality agreements.

A claimant is not obliged to sign any conf as full and final-but if they did and then breached it,then potentially they could be in big trouble.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is very interesting, and relevant to my Egg thread about a potentially unenforceable agreement that we trying to decide whether to challenge or not:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/174507-militant-consumers-friend-egg.html

 

On my thread, two posters have claimed that my agreement is definitely unenforceable, but we are probably too worried to just sit back and wait to be harrassed by DCAs, and then sued with risk of CCJ if we are wrong.

 

Therefore we are concentrating on PPI refunds at the moment as a less risky way of reducing the debt. (though we have not ruled out asking a lawyer to check out the agreement). Perhaps we should do both!

 

However, paying the debt off and then coming back at Egg with this argument is another matter. Ok, so it's probably less chance of success than refusing to pay and claiming unenforceability. But on the other hand less risky than waiting to be sued.

 

Perhaps we could put the arguments to Egg in the meantime. And if they tell us we are wrong and the agreement is correctly executed, then we stop paying and they get nasty, then we pay up in full at the last minute.... they'd have definitely told us some lies and we'd have a pretty good case for a "mistake" being made?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is very interesting, and relevant to my Egg thread about a potentially unenforceable agreement that we trying to decide whether to challenge or not:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/174507-militant-consumers-friend-egg.html

 

On my thread, two posters have claimed that my agreement is definitely unenforceable, but we are probably too worried to just sit back and wait to be harrassed by DCAs, and then sued with risk of CCJ if we are wrong.

 

Therefore we are concentrating on PPI refunds at the moment as a less risky way of reducing the debt. (though we have not ruled out asking a lawyer to check out the agreement). Perhaps we should do both!

 

However, paying the debt off and then coming back at Egg with this argument is another matter. Ok, so it's probably less chance of success than refusing to pay and claiming unenforceability. But on the other hand less risky than waiting to be sued.

 

Perhaps we could put the arguments to Egg in the meantime. And if they tell us we are wrong and the agreement is correctly executed, then we stop paying and they get nasty, then we pay up in full at the last minute.... they'd have definitely told us some lies and we'd have a pretty good case for a "mistake" being made?

 

what exactly are the risks of challenging for you....I think its an important one to ask as they rely on our fear of challenges....This is why they systematically abuse all the laws of the CCA and DPA AGAINST US... I received 300 pages of defence 3 days before court against GE ...they abuse every law in the book compulsively...

 

my dad used to say ....the worst they can do is kill you....

 

wise words indeed..

 

every body seems to think you need to be judge deed .....county court is an empty room with you and a judge and whatever local yokum jobsworth solicitor they can find that will try to defend the indefensible

 

micko

 

mick v ge won..... judge barraclough 1/9/2008... huddersfield county court...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The risk is my friend being sued by Egg, losing, and ending up with a CCJ. At present she only has defaults, and these will drop off the credit file in a couple of years.

 

If there is a way to proactively challenge then we are well up for it. Anyone reading this, please do post on my thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subbing to this one. I have taken the view with my ex credit cards:rolleyes: that I have paid them back the capital and as they have nothing to enforce the interest or charges then they are now out of my life (thanks to CAG I have to say). I think the business claimant who was forced to take out a loan to repay the charges was well within his rights to fight and win. This has also happened to us on more than one occasion but we seem to have successfully got rid of the DCAs - which adds weight to that argument.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read much on this also I would say that without a doubt the mistake elements do offer remit.

But as always,a hearing taking place in the SCT will probably be influenced on the day by the Judge-we have seen so many who remain unsympathetic to lenders who are just being evasive.

But if there was a clear watertight case presented,then it could be another matter.

Equally the mistake aspects could be applied to many areas.

In 2006 one member was refunded his loan in its entirity which he was given to address penalty charges on his business account-I believe that his defence used mistake in his arguement.

I think in the early days of CAG there were a few such cases but were tied up with confidentiality agreements.

A claimant is not obliged to sign any conf as full and final-but if they did and then breached it,then potentially they could be in big trouble.

 

top contribution martin but i have to say ....we are leeds.......

 

cheers

 

micko

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha Miko-yes you got the Sl trophy but we still have the CC and SL Shield........Roll on February;)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...