Mint Loan CCA - Correct?Default includes PPI

[scrambledbyegg]

I have been sent this CCA by MINT. Does anyone know if its correct? I have been defaulted and the DCA Unidebt is listing the full amount borrowed less what I had paid. Can the default include the full interest charge and the full PPI premium even after defaulting several years before the end?

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richie_1892/

Edited March 2, 2009 by scrambledbyegg
added link

[tendogs]

No CCA to be seen

[scrambledbyegg]

cant upload them any ideas?

[davey77]

Can't comment of the other aspects you mention but the actually agreement looks ok to me. Fixed loans seem to be better put together than CCards generally.

 

Hopefully others can stop by to take a look see.

[alangee]

Where is the default notice?

 

Alan

[scrambledbyegg]

They sent a default notice, but when I asked for statement it shows the full load plus PPI and interest for the full term, all payments made are deducted from this total and that is how they get the default amount i.e. default includes PPI and all interest

[scrambledbyegg]

Update on this account, I was unsure if the agreement sent was valid so I started paying Moorcroft. It has been passed to Arden now who refuse to negotiate. I have offered a sum and stated quite clearly that I will not send financial information or enter into verbal discussion with them. They continue to refuse the offer and want me to complete a financial statement and call them to discuss the matter. Any ideas on what I do next? My understanding is that only a court can force you to complete a financial statement. Given I have a number of accounts in dispute how would I proceed in doing one, leaving the disputed accounts offer gives the impression I can afford more, yet including them could be taken as admittance of liability?

[scrambledbyegg]

The arden muppets continue to ask for financial info, am going to send this:

 

Further to your recent correspondence on the above account, as previously stated in my letters xxxx, xxx and the original questionnaire sent by yourselves I confirm that I am not willing to discuss this matter over the telephone. Also as previously stated I am not prepared to divulge sensitive financial information to you or your client.

 

Your reference to continued non-payment is directly due to your company’s attitude and approach, you have failed to accept all reasonable offers. I believe that your actions are contrary to the OFT guidelines on debt collection, and your actions have been noted.

 

Since the alleged sum is of a similar size to another liability I have, I consider it appropriate that the same repayment offer is made to yourselves, that ius £150 pcm. This is lower than previous due to the current financial climate and additional HMRC liabilities.

 

Having now reviewed the alleged CCA sent by MINT, I am of the opinion that a properly executed agreement does not exist with regard to this alleged account, specifically missing prescribed terms and the fact the miss-sold PPI forms part of the agreement and is not separate. This either renders the account void or will as in existing case law result in a “reset” of the agreement and terms, should this matter go to court.

 

I intend to make payment on 18th June should you accept this proposal, if you do not then I will consider payment to MINT directly and inform them of your lack of cooperation and potential violation of the OFT guidelines.

[scrambledbyegg]

Having read about multiple agreements, does anyone agree with me that this is and therefore not enforceable?mint1.pdf

[simes2]

Hi Ive had a look at your credit agreement and must agree that it is unenforceable. The cca 1974 s18 does require that the loan and the ppi insurance should be separate entities. They could not enforce it with a court order under cca 1974 s61 due to the fact that under schedule 6 of the 1983 si regulations repayments are prescribed terms and hence would need two signatures on two separate agreements. The mistake they made is bundling your loan and ppi into one agreement and monthly payment. Hope this has helped.

[scrambledbyegg]

Well Mint/RBS rejected my miss-sold PPI claim today despite admitting that is was a single premium policy and that they had no record of my pre-existing medical condition not had they asked about. It was my fault for not reading the terms and conditions! They also rejected any notion that their staff would imply that the loan had more chance of being accepted if I took the PPI. On to the FSA I guess.

[scrambledbyegg]

Well Mint responded with my claim that the agreement was unenforceable since it contained sums for fixed use and some for free use, ie. lump sum premium for PPI (miss-sold in my opinion) and the loan.

mint_MA1_red.pdf

mint_MA2_red.pdf

Edited October 3, 2010 by scrambledbyegg
jpedgs replaced with PDFs

[scrambledbyegg]

Any ideas?

[Craigbadger]

Procede with the PPI. Creditors always decline at the first letter. From what I gather FOS will pretty much always go against the creditor with Single premium policies. Go back at them a bit harder making it clear you'll be going to the FOS. Ive had 4 and they all came back at the second letter in my favour.

Bare in mind if its an old agreement there can be some pretty huge 8% interest coming back aswell.

 

 

As for the other im not sure.