Photoman v LloydsTSB (Loan)

[steven4064]

I think it does comply in this respect. As I pointed out in my last post, in principle you can calculate the number of repayments (provided they got the amount of credit right, which they didn't)

[shakespeare62]

In this case, the agreement actually says they are part of the loan amount. So, in principle, taking the interest rate as a given, you could work out the number of payments.

 

The prescribed terms do not seem to demand the number of payments be present in either schedule 1 or schedule 6.

 

However, putting the loan amount of £12153.43 into Dualcalc with 84 payments of £235.35 gives an APR of 16.2%. Putting the laon amount as £11928.08 (ie without the £225) gives an APR of 17%.

 

They say the total loan amount is 12153.43 but the sums indicate that it was really £11928.08.

 

So, the terms provided are completely inconsistent. If the £225 is included in the laon amount, it shouldn't be and the loan amount is incorrectly stated. If it is not, the total they give for the loan amount is wrong.In any case, they added in the 35p from the monthly repayment.

 

IMHO, whichever way you cut it, the total loan amount, which is a prescribed term, is incorrectly stated and the agreement is unenforceable.

 

I agree with Steve. Just wondering tho' if it's worth getting an extra opinion ...say from PT if he's still around ?

[Peterbard]

The only reason I know it was 84 months, is because that is what I was told over the phone, and on an estimate sent prior to the agreement being signed.

 

 

 

Now, under schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (agreements) regs 1983.

 

The requirements under the headings "repayments" states:

 

5. Consumer credit agreements.

 

A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

 

(a) number of repayments;

(b) amount of repayments;

© frequency and timing of repayments;

(d) dates of repayments;

(e) the manner in which any of the above may be

determined;

or in any other way, and any power of the creditor

to vary what is payable.

 

 

 

 

.... so, as the agreement does state: b, and c, would this mean it complies ?

 

 

You would think that the actual duration of the loan was one of the most fundamental requirements ??

 

Hi

Yes i to got a figure of 84 monthe on my spread sheet. This would correspond with the fee being in the TCC as it should be i see no breach exept the total charge is misslabled and that cuts no ice as has been proved.

I don't use the dual calc thingy but try entering 87 months with the fee in the total credit and see what figure it gives.

I do not agree however that the information given i enough to satisfy schedule six regardings repayments.

As ponted out abothe regs say the amount to disharge the endebtedness calculatedby any of the following.

It then gives a list of items to use in the calculation which must include paymnt amounnts an number of payments it says nothing about using anothe variable such as interst rate which in itself would not be an absolute number but initself variable dependat on othe values.

 

Pettr

Edited March 24, 2009 by Dodgeball

[Peterbard]

Hi

Also

just before i go out why are we taking the interest rate as a given as anybody tried to reconstudect it using the 84 months and the tap available from the APR calculation might just be worth back checking to see if it does come out to 15,12% i will do it when i come back if no one bees me to it

Regards

Peter

[steven4064]

Dualcalc gives an APR of 17.0% for £11928.08 repayable as 84 installments of £235.35. THe nominal interest rate comes out at 15.77% not 15.12%.

 

I agree that the information given on repayments is inadequate. However, Schedule 6(5)says it may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following.

 

They have given the amount and the period (b and c) which could be argued to satisfy "combinatin of any". The debtor knows as a result of this that he has to pay £235.35 every month to discharge his obligations under the agreement -he just isn't told how long he has to keep it up. Therefore he has to kepp on paying until the balance is zero. Not ideal, but I can't see that Schedule 6(5) is violated.

Edited March 24, 2009 by steven4064

[photoman]

Peter

 

Thank you.

 

I have been looking over and over this agreement again,

 

I don't have dualcal (mac user) so I've been entering the figures into a couple of online calculators.

 

Firstly, this one

Loan repayments calculator | This is Money

(which though not the FSA, I got actually directed to it via an FSA site, so I presume they approve it).

 

Secondly, this one:

Loan calculator : FSA money made clear

(which actually is the FSA's own site calculator, but not as accurate, as it works in years rather than months)

 

 

These are my own findings.

 

If we just look at the principal loan (£11000) for a moment, and deal with the PPI separately.

 

 

Using the first calculator

 

If I enter:

The loan amount as:

£11000

The period as:

84 months

The % rate as:

15.12

(

This site asks for the "actual" interest rate rather than the APR

).

 

I get the following:

Total monthly repayment:

£213.01

 

 

However, .... if I instead enter:

 

The loan amount as:

£11225

 

Then I get the following:

Total monthly repayment:

£217.36

 

(which is just 1p less than the figure appearing on the agreement under installments, and is probably just to do with leap years etc)

 

 

So, this indicates to me that the £225 HAS been included in the total sum used to calculate the installments.

 

 

Using the FSA site calculator:

 

If I enter:

Loan amount:

£11225

Repayment period:

7 years

APR:

17%

Annual payments:

12

 

I get the following result:

Repayments:

£229.39

 

(which does not correlate to anything on the agreement, so instead is probably just giving me the effective repayments ie the APR)

 

 

..... So, If however, I enter the annual % rate (ie: 15.12), instead of the APR .

 

I get the following result:

Repayments:

£217.36

 

 

..... so, this gives the same result.

 

 

So ... either way.. it looks as if the £225 HAS definitely been added to the £11000 for the purpose of calculating the repayments.

 

 

(If I use the same calculators on the PPI, they give the same figure of £17.98 as on the agreement. So this verifies that the calculators are working correctly.)

 

 

 

 

What should have happened:

 

 

The charge should not have been added to the amount of credit, and then used to calculate the installments; by adding interest on the whole sum for the period of the loan.

 

Instead (as the charge was paid immediately upon draw down), even though such sum would indeed have still been repayable by myself, as a charge, no interest over the period should have been due upon such.

 

Therefore, I should have been repaying:

£213.01 per month as installments and interest for the £11000.

 

Plus the £225 (without interest) spread over the period of the loan (84 months), which would equate to roughly an additional £2.68 per month.

 

This means my monthly installments should have been:

 

£213.01 + £2.68 + £17.98 =

£233.67

 

Giving a Total repayable of

£19,628.28

 

 

Instead, they were:

 

£217.37 + £17.98 =

£235.35

 

Giving a Total repayable of

£19,769.40

 

 

Which is difference of

£141.

in their favour.

 

 

 

 

...... on top of this,

 

I do still contend that the PPI should NOT have been included in the Total amount of credit (based on my earlier assertions).

Instead it should have treated as a "charge for credit", and paid back in the same manner, this would have meant (repaying the £928.08 over 84 months but without interest) installments of £11.05.

 

In which case, applying the same principles,

 

My monthly repayments should have been:

 

£213.01 + £2.68 + £11.05 =

£226.74

 

Giving a Total repayable of

£19046.16

 

 

As opposed to the

£19,769.40

 

Which is a difference of

£723.24

in their favour !!

 

 

 

 

Do you agree ??

 

 

 

PM

Edited March 24, 2009 by photoman

[Peterbard]

Dualcalc gives an APR of 17.0% for £11928.08 repayable as 84 installments of £235.35. THe nominal interest rate comes out at 15.77% not 15.12%.

 

I agree that the information given on repayments is inadequate. However, Schedule 6(5)says it may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following.

 

They have given the amount and the period (b and c) which could be argued to satisfy "combinatin of any". The debtor knows as a result of this that he has to pay £235.35 every month to discharge his obligations under the agreement -he just isn't told how long he has to keep it up. Therefore he has to kepp on paying until the balance is zero. Not ideal, but I can't see that Schedule 6(5) is violated.

 

Hi stephen

 

I think we may have to agree to ditter on this.

To me the relevant bit is "amount to discharge the debt"

I think that can only be stated if you know how many payments and at what cost.

 

The purpose of the prexcribed terms is to ensure these figures are representd.

 

Applying the logic ,it can be worked out would to my mind invalidate any of the terms as vertually all af them could be worked out.

It would also topedo any section 18 argument becase the presribed terms can certainly be worked out from the parent agreement.

 

Regards

[photoman]

Hi stephen

 

I think we may have to agree to ditter on this.

To me the relevant bit is "amount to discharge the debt"

I think that can only be stated if you know how many payments and at what cost.

 

The purpose of the prexcribed terms is to ensure these figures are representd.

 

Applying the logic ,it can be worked out would to my mind invalidate any of the terms as vertually all af them could be worked out.

It would also topedo any section 18 argument becase the presribed terms can certainly be worked out from the parent agreement.

 

Regards

 

 

It is a bit ambiguous, and does still leave room for abuse by a lender.

 

For example the creditor could simply provide c & e......

 

..... which would leave you not even knowing how much you were paying each month, how long it would go on for, and even which date of the month you would be clobbered by such !!!

 

 

 

 

5. Consumer credit agreements.

 

A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

 

(a) number of repayments;

(b) amount of repayments;

© frequency and timing of repayments;

(d) dates of repayments;

(e) the manner in which any of the above may be

determined;

or in any other way, and any power of the creditor

to vary what is payable.

[photoman]

Peter,

 

See your online.

 

I have to go out for afternoon now.

 

Would greatly appreciate your views on my earlier post, but please excuse me if I don't view and comment upon such until later.

 

Regards

 

PM

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Total credit 11000

Period 84 months

installments217.37

TAP 19939.08

APR17.02%

 

Total credit 928.08

Period 84 Months

Insatllments17.98

TAP 1510.32

APR 16.23%

 

Combined

 

total credit 11928.08

84 MOnths

Installments 235.35

TAP 19769.4

APR16.96%

 

With fee added to credit

 

Total crediit 12153.08

 

APR 16.215%

 

My method is the one redfferd to in the TCC regulations and is 100% accurate i have used it hundreds of times

 

I think the problem is that you are using the interest rate in yur calculations.

 

This is not used to part of the trilogy of APR,TCC and total credit.

 

None of the other figures will depend on it and the regulations do not say that the fee cannot be included in it for that reason

The regulations say that a charge cannot make up the tptal credit and must form part of the TCC but this is to enable the correct calculation of the APR not the flat rate interest which can bassically include any thing they like as long as they tell you.

IN a flat rate interest calculation there is no tottalcharge for credit as such just the interst.

 

Sorry

Peter

Edited March 24, 2009 by Dodgeball
trying to convert to english

[Peterbard]

It is a bit ambiguous, and does still leave room for abuse by a lender.

 

For example the creditor could simply provide c & e......

 

..... which would leave you not even knowing how much you were paying each month, how long it would go on for, and even which date of the month you would be clobbered by such !!!

 

 

 

 

5. Consumer credit agreements.

 

A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

 

(a) number of repayments;

(b) amount of repayments;

© frequency and timing of repayments;

(d) dates of repayments;

(e) the manner in which any of the above may be

determined;

or in any other way, and any power of the creditor

to vary what is payable.

 

HI

 

I suppose using the same criterea the creditor could just use e.

 

Peter

[steven4064]

I think we may have to agree to ditter on this.

To me the relevant bit is "amount to discharge the debt"

I think that can only be stated if you know how many payments and at what cost.

I agree - that is what ought to happen. unfortunately, it is not what the regulations actually require - the wording is "A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments" - it doesn't mention the amount. And, yes, they probably could get away with just giving some sort of 'algorythm'.

 

I think that a term saying, say,

 

"repayments equal to twice the debtor's age, payable when there is an 'R' in the month" would probably satisfy schedule 6 (5).

 

It would be daft, it would be wrong, but they would probably get away with it.

[photoman]

Okay guys.

 

Thank you both so very much for the time and effort put in, both in checking the figures for me, and in posting.

 

So, it looks like using the superior prog (dualcac), and the superior understandings of you both then the figures do add up correctly.

 

 

However, as I say I do still contend that the PPi should have been considered as a charge for credit, and so subsequently should have been excluded from the cost of credit.

 

To this end I have just taken another good read of the Supreme Court Judgement of London North Securities v Meadows [2005] EWCA Civ 956.

 

The circumstances of the case are nearly identical to my own.

 

The conclusion of the case was that the Insurance Premium should be considered as being a charge for credit, and as such should NOT have been entered into the total cost of credit.

 

It is a lengthy and complex judgement (which I'm sure you learned folk are probably familiar with), with the juicy and pertinent bits being thrashed out form around paragraph 40.

 

 

The conclusion was.

 

69:

In those circumstances, while we respectfully disagree with the judge’s conclusion in respect of the mortgage arrears, we agree with his conclusion about the insurance premium. It follows that we dismiss the appeal because, if the insurance premium was part of the total charge for credit, as we hold, then the amount of credit under the agreement was incorrectly stated. It should have been stated as £5,000, not £5,750. It is agreed that this is a breach of the Act which cannot be overcome. It follows that the judge was right to dismiss the claim, though not for the first of the reasons that he gave.

 

So, using this along with Wilson does I believe give me grounds and cause of action.

 

Any thoughts ?

 

 

PM

[Peterbard]

Hi

I don;t know if you have seen this but it ammends the 1980 tccregs and removes any doubtabout compulsarry insuances and the fact that they should be in the TCC it is SI 1198 /3177

 

© a premium under a contract of insurance, payable under the transaction by the debtor or a relative of his, where the making or maintenance of the contract of insurance is required by as a condition of making the agreement, and

ii) for the sole purpose of ensuring complete or partial repayment of the credit, and complete or partial payment to the creditor of such of those charges included in the total charge for credit as are payable to him under the transaction, in the event of the death, invalidity, illness or unemployment of the debtor

Yes i do believe yu have cause for a case if the PPI ws mandatory certainly.

 

Also i would not let go of the contention that not enough information was suplied regareding the repayment of the loan

]I believe that the court would not consider the obligations set out in the act to show how the debt should be repaid are sfficiantly clear and predudice the debtor in that he was not instantly able to see how much the loan ws gong to cost him

This is compunded by the facrt that their was no TAP and TCC figure.I don't know what the date of the agreement is but some of these will be required terms on your agreement

If yu wnt me to lookinto this in moor detail for yu let me know ]

 

PS my APR calculator is far superior and actualy works i will show how to buikd one if there is enough interest it cn evluate an APR even if the payments are of differnt sizes an ddiffernt intervals.

I will show anyone how to make one if they are intersted

 

Petr

Peter

Edited March 24, 2009 by Dodgeball

[photoman]

Thank you Peter,

 

So, with the Total amount of Credit being incorrect, The TAP and the TCC, and the generally ambiguous and difficult to discern presentation of my obligations, I think I have more than enough ammo here.

 

Will start planning corse of action in the morning after a good nights sleep.

 

 

Thank you again.

 

PM

 

 

PS: The agreement was in 2001

[Peterbard]

All the very best of luck and keep us infoprmed of how you get on

 

Peter

[cosalt]

Hi

I don;t know if you have seen this but it ammends the 1980 tccregs and removes any doubtabout compulsarry insuances and the fact that they should be in the TCC it is SI 1198 /3177

 

© a premium under a contract of insurance, payable under the transaction by the debtor or a relative of his, where the making or maintenance of the contract of insurance is required by as a condition of making the agreement, and

ii) for the sole purpose of ensuring complete or partial repayment of the credit, and complete or partial payment to the creditor of such of those charges included in the total charge for credit as are payable to him under the transaction, in the event of the death, invalidity, illness or unemployment of the debtor

Yes i do believe yu have cause for a case if the PPI ws mandatory certainly.

 

Also i would not let go of the contention that not enough information was suplied regareding the repayment of the loan

]I believe that the court would not consider the obligations set out in the act to show how the debt should be repaid are sfficiantly clear and predudice the debtor in that he was not instantly able to see how much the loan ws gong to cost him

This is compunded by the facrt that their was no TAP and TCC figure.I don't know what the date of the agreement is but some of these will be required terms on your agreement

If yu wnt me to lookinto this in moor detail for yu let me know ]

 

PS my APR calculator is far superior and actualy works i will show how to buikd one if there is enough interest it cn evluate an APR even if the payments are of differnt sizes an ddiffernt intervals.

I will show anyone how to make one if they are intersted

 

Petr

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

I have a couple of agreements on the go where I am finding it impossible to check the APR due to a deferred start on the payments. You kindly helped on one whereby it was a 37 month agreement but with 36 payments starting 2 months from agreement start, this is the one where they have charged interest on the arrangement fee. But I believe your calculator was not working at the time to check it.

 

I would be very interested in your calculator as the dualcalc has no way of checking with a deferred start.

 

Thanks

Cosalt

[Peterbard]

Hi Peter,

 

I have a couple of agreements on the go where I am finding it impossible to check the APR due to a deferred start on the payments. You kindly helped on one whereby it was a 37 month agreement but with 36 payments starting 2 months from agreement start, this is the one where they have charged interest on the arrangement fee. But I believe your calculator was not working at the time to check it.

 

I would be very interested in your calculator as the dualcalc has no way of checking with a deferred start.

 

Thanks

Cosalt

 

HI C

I am currently doing a post on how to construct and use the spreadsheet for calculating apr with irregular intervalls and payments it will be ready ASAP. If however you want me to look at your agreement inthe mean time and calculate the value i will be happy to do it for you

You can PM me if you like or i will give you my e-mail if you don't want to put it up.

 

Peter

[photoman]

Peter

 

Thanks for your reference to the TCC amendments.

 

Yes, I had seen it (and forgotten about it, so thanks for reminding me).

 

Now have a copy on file.

 

You made a typo, and the actual SI is SI 1999 / 3177.

 

1999 being the year of scripting, not 1198 !!

 

..... I don't think there's many victims of PPI mis-selling still around from the 12th century...... and they would probably find their claims statute barred anyhow !!

[Peterbard]

Peter

 

Thanks for your reference to the TCC amendments.

 

Yes, I had seen it (and forgotten about it, so thanks for reminding me).

 

Now have a copy on file.

 

You made a typo, and the actual SI is SI 1999 / 3177.

 

1999 being the year of scripting, not 1198 !!

 

..... I don't think there's many victims of PPI mis-selling still around from the 12th century...... and they would probably find their claims statute barred anyhow !!

 

Could havve been the white paper draft of magna carta.oh ok it was a typo

 

Petr

[Undercover-Elsa]

Subbing for reference, best of luck Photoman

Elsa