Jump to content


Photoman v LloydsTSB (Loan)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5480 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

Here is the Lloyds loan I spoke of.

 

IMHO, unfortunately, I think this one is properly executed, and was thus enforceable.

 

........ although, I would dearly love it not to be, as it caused me no end of grief !!

 

 

So.... if anyone begs to differ... Do please say so, and give reasonings ?

 

 

 

 

I was originally contemplating the following contentions:

 

 

CONTENTIONS AND CAUSE OF ACTION:

 

1/ The PPI included in the loan agreement was actually required as a condition of the loan.

 

i/ I have evidence of this by way of the manner that the loan was presented to me, and how it was processed.

 

ii/ Also, by way of actual and explicit wording on the agreement (they actually use the word "required), and the manner it which it was laid out

 

iii/ There is also nothing to demonstrate that the PPi was at any time presented for my consideration, nothing signed by myself, and also any details regards such actually pre-completed by the bank itself.

 

 

2/ Therefore, due to such terms and conditions (ie: PPI "required"):

i/ Under 4© of the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regs 1980 the insurance was actually a "Charge" for credit, and so was NOT to be entered as part of the total "Cost" of credit.

ii/ As it was in fact added to and entered as part of the "cost" of credit, then the agreement does not comply with schedule 6 (paragraph 2) of the Consumer Credit (agreements) regs 1983, as there is no term correctly stating the total amount of credit.

 

iii/ As such then under section 61(1a) of the CCA74 the agreement was improperly executed, and so under section 65 (1) it could only have been enforced by a court.

 

iv/ But, as the agreement failed to conform with the above requirements then under section 127 (3) it would be irredeemably unenforceable (remember the agreement pre-dates the later 2006 amendments revoking sec 127).

 

v/ Therefore the default notice should not have been issued, and (under section 113 (3c) and 106 (parts a + d) of the CCA74 ) the guarantee was unenforceable, and it should never have been called upon, and now such sums should be returned.

 

 

 

So...... as I mentioned before in an earlier post, that was my original opinion.

 

 

However.... I am now doubting this?.......

 

It could be construed, that even if the PPI is indeed deemed a "charge" for credit, such "charge" is also financed by a "loan", and that is a secondary agreement to the primary loan.

 

This second subsidiary loan, DOES also contain the prescribed terms.

(amount of credit, %, and repayments)

 

Therefore, yes indeed, it is a multiple agreement;

One for the primary loan to repay borrowing,

Another for a loan to pay the premium for the PPI (regardless of whether it is considered a charge or not).

 

BUT, the prescribed terms for each loan DO appear on the agreement. Thus it was properly executed.

 

 

 

 

Anyhow, here's the agreement.

 

 

The loan account itself is now closed.

 

This was because it was a "secured" loan, and the bank issued a default, and then called in the guarantee.

 

This was then accepted as f&f of the OS balance.

 

Would like to hear others comments, either agreeing or disagreeing with the above, before I decide for certain?

 

As I say, I would dearly love to tackle this one if possible.... as they gave me a huge amount of grief over it..... and it also caused family issues due to the calling in of the security "guarantee".

 

 

 

Lloydsloan.jpg[/img]

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

PM

 

I agree about the second loan.

 

On the first (post #948) - what about this case posted by shakespear62 - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188257-help-exchange-evidence-2.html#post2056674 as the £225 charge seems to be included in the credit rather than the charge for credit?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven,

 

Thanks, I had wondered myself about the £225 ?

 

This sum does seem to be just "floating" around in the agreement.

 

Ive entered both £11k and £11225 into dualcalc, and it definitely appears that the £225 has been considered as "credit".

 

However, it is entered as a loan to repay such charge, and I think it would simply fall into all the same categories of credit as the £11k (restricted use, creditor debtor etc) thus negating the need to have its own prescribed terms.

 

 

Other contentions I have considered are:

 

1/ The Total amount of the loan is actually wrong.... only by .35p.. but still ?

However I doubt a judge would throw such a large loan out on such a small error.

2/ When the sum of £11k was deposited into account, it actually put the account slightly into credit. Obviously I would have then free to use such, making this additional sum "unrestricted" ?

 

Quick opinions if you or anyone else mind..... and then maybe I'll start my own thread on the issue?

 

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

The £225 is nothing to do with s18 - the House of Lords case that shakespeare62 linked is qute clear - a fee like this must be in the TCC not the amount of credit. Otherwise, the prescribed term (amount of credit) is mis-stated and the agreement is unenforceable. No need to invoke s18.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also why has the first installment of £235.35 been added to the total amount of credit ? I notice as well that the total amount of Loan appears to intersect the total amount of credit box. See where it says “if yes or some, total amount of loan (including other charges to be added to the loan)”

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photoman,

 

Where on the Lloyds TSB Agreement does it state that you required the PPI?

 

Although it is included in the Loan, I can`t find the option wether to choose PPI or not, so to me it looks like they have simply added it on.

 

Do you have any other paperwork for this to show you actually chose the PPI?

 

When I wanted to compare it with my own CCA, mine is for a Credit Card. I though your`s was also a Credit Card CCA.

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Lloyds loan I spoke of.

 

 

IMHO, unfortunately, I think this one is properly executed, and was thus enforceable.

 

........ although, I would dearly love it not to be, as it caused me no end of grief !!

 

 

So.... if anyone begs to differ... Do please say so, and give reasonings ?

 

 

 

 

 

I was originally contemplating the following contentions:

 

 

CONTENTIONS AND CAUSE OF ACTION:

 

1/ The PPI included in the loan agreement was actually required as a condition of the loan.

 

i/ I have evidence of this by way of the manner that the loan was presented to me, and how it was processed.

 

ii/ Also, by way of actual and explicit wording on the agreement (they actually use the word "required), and the manner it which it was laid out

 

iii/ There is also nothing to demonstrate that the PPi was at any time presented for my consideration, nothing signed by myself, and also any details regards such actually pre-completed by the bank itself.

 

 

2/ Therefore, due to such terms and conditions (ie: PPI "required"):

 

i/ Under 4© of the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regs 1980 the insurance was actually a "Charge" for credit, and so was NOT to be entered as part of the total "Cost" of credit.

 

ii/ As it was in fact added to and entered as part of the "cost" of credit, then the agreement does not comply with schedule 6 (paragraph 2) of the Consumer Credit (agreements) regs 1983, as there is no term correctly stating the total amount of credit.

 

iii/ As such then under section 61(1a) of the CCA74 the agreement was improperly executed, and so under section 65 (1) it could only have been enforced by a court.

 

iv/ But, as the agreement failed to conform with the above requirements then under section 127 (3) it would be irredeemably unenforceable (remember the agreement pre-dates the later 2006 amendments revoking sec 127).

 

v/ Therefore the default notice should not have been issued, and (under section 113 (3c) and 106 (parts a + d) of the CCA74 ) the guarantee was unenforceable, and it should never have been called upon, and now such sums should be returned.

 

 

 

So...... as I mentioned before in an earlier post, that was my original opinion.

 

 

However.... I am now doubting this?.......

 

It could be construed, that even if the PPI is indeed deemed a "charge" for credit, such "charge" is also financed by a "loan", and that is a secondary agreement to the primary loan.

 

This second subsidiary loan, DOES also contain the prescribed terms.

(amount of credit, %, and repayments)

 

Therefore, yes indeed, it is a multiple agreement;

One for the primary loan to repay borrowing,

Another for a loan to pay the premium for the PPI (regardless of whether it is considered a charge or not).

 

BUT, the prescribed terms for each loan DO appear on the agreement. Thus it was properly executed.

 

 

 

 

Anyhow, here's the agreement.

 

 

The loan account itself is now closed.

 

This was because it was a "secured" loan, and the bank issued a default, and then called in the guarantee.

 

This was then accepted as f&f of the OS balance.

 

Would like to hear others comments, either agreeing or disagreeing with the above, before I decide for certain?

 

As I say, I would dearly love to tackle this one if possible.... as they gave me a huge amount of grief over it..... and it also caused family issues due to the calling in of the security "guarantee".

 

 

 

Lloydsloan.jpg[/img]

 

Hi, I might be missing something, but I can't see the number of repayments on this agreement ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PM

 

firstly you say that the ppi was required...yet the agreement states it was optional ?? (unless clause 7 has something to do with it)

 

IF it is required then surely it WOULD be a charge for credit

 

As this is a fixed loan There should be number of repayments, also the total charge for credit appears to be missing as is the total amount of the loan.

 

on the whole it seems a very dodgy agreement

 

dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one ! Sounds like its unenforceable to me ...:)

 

 

Okay,

 

Thank you Shakespeare & Steven,

 

I think I'm now going to act on this one after all.

 

yes, the total amount is mis-stated slightly, but I do wonder if this would be sufficient grounds ?

 

ANyhow, I think the fact that the Charges have been added to the loanare adequate grounds to have it declared improperly executed.

 

But... the first hurdle though would be the fact that the loan account is now closed.

 

So, would I first need to get the agreement re-opened under sec 138 as an extortionate credit bargain ?

 

If so.... any links to statutes, cases or other Caggers regards the re-opening of extortionate bargains.

 

I think I have sufficient grounds; including the fact that the loan was taken under duress and pressure from them in order to repay existing borrowing with themselves (which incidentally was also composed of sums equivalent to accumulated account charges imposed by they themselves).

 

I think I'm going to start a dedicated thread for this one, and will do so shortly.

 

I'll then post a link, and would someone then be able to move the relevant posts from here ?

 

Regards

 

PM

 

PS:

 

Cosalt,

The number of installments is covered by the statement under the section entitled installments, which states:

Installments will continue until the balance of the loan and any interest has been paid.

 

So, I believe this, along with the statement on the date of the month is sufficient to satisfy the prescribed terms.

 

Incidentally, it was actually shown as 84 months (7 years) on pre contract quotes etc.

 

 

NP:

The box for PPI was actually on the back page, and it definately used the term "required".

I'll try to scan and post it up when I get a chance.

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

Okay,

 

Thank you Shakespeare & Steven,

 

I think I'm now going to act on this one after all.

 

yes, the total amount is mis-stated slightly, but I do wonder if this would be sufficient grounds ?

 

ANyhow, I think the fact that the Charges have been added to the loanare adequate grounds to have it declared improperly executed.

 

But... the first hurdle though would be the fact that the loan account is now closed.

 

So, would I first need to get the agreement re-opened under sec 138 as an extortionate credit bargain ?

 

If so.... any links to statutes, cases or other Caggers regards the re-opening of extortionate bargains.

 

I think I have sufficient grounds; including the fact that the loan was taken under duress and pressure from them in order to repay existing borrowing with themselves (which incidentally was also composed of sums equivalent to accumulated account charges imposed by they themselves).

 

I think I'm going to start a dedicated thread for this one, and will do so shortly.

 

I'll then post a link, and would someone then be able to move the relevant posts from here ?

 

Regards

 

PM

 

PS:

 

Cosalt,

The number of installments is covered by the statement under the section entitled installments, which states:

Installments will continue until the balance of the loan and any interest has been paid.

 

So, I believe this, along with the statement on the date of the month is sufficient to satisfy the prescribed terms.

 

Incidentally, it was actually shown as 84 months (7 years) on pre contract quotes etc.

 

 

NP:

The box for PPI was actually on the back page, and it definately used the term "required".

I'll try to scan and post it up when I get a chance.

 

 

Yes I see, I believe that statement is enough to conform with the act.

 

But looking at it from a nieve consumer angle how can you work out how long the agreement is for? with no number of repayments, no total amount payable and no total charge for credit, unless you are a whizz with spreadsheets it is impossible to calculate.

 

 

 

Cosalt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I see, I believe that statement is enough to conform with the act.

 

But looking at it from a nieve consumer angle how can you work out how long the agreement is for? with no number of repayments, no total amount payable and no total charge for credit, unless you are a whizz with spreadsheets it is impossible to calculate.

 

 

 

Cosalt

 

 

 

Mmmm, yep, you do have a point. It`s not up to the borrower to have to work out the payments etc. They should be simple to read, in laymans terms, for people like me to understand :grin:

  • Haha 1

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Lloyds loan I spoke of.

 

 

IMHO, unfortunately, I think this one is properly executed, and was thus enforceable.

 

........ although, I would dearly love it not to be, as it caused me no end of grief !!

 

 

So.... if anyone begs to differ... Do please say so, and give reasonings ?

 

 

 

 

 

I was originally contemplating the following contentions:

 

 

CONTENTIONS AND CAUSE OF ACTION:

 

1/ The PPI included in the loan agreement was actually required as a condition of the loan.

 

i/ I have evidence of this by way of the manner that the loan was presented to me, and how it was processed.

 

ii/ Also, by way of actual and explicit wording on the agreement (they actually use the word "required), and the manner it which it was laid out

 

iii/ There is also nothing to demonstrate that the PPi was at any time presented for my consideration, nothing signed by myself, and also any details regards such actually pre-completed by the bank itself.

 

 

2/ Therefore, due to such terms and conditions (ie: PPI "required"):

 

i/ Under 4© of the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regs 1980 the insurance was actually a "Charge" for credit, and so was NOT to be entered as part of the total "Cost" of credit.

 

ii/ As it was in fact added to and entered as part of the "cost" of credit, then the agreement does not comply with schedule 6 (paragraph 2) of the Consumer Credit (agreements) regs 1983, as there is no term correctly stating the total amount of credit.

 

iii/ As such then under section 61(1a) of the CCA74 the agreement was improperly executed, and so under section 65 (1) it could only have been enforced by a court.

 

iv/ But, as the agreement failed to conform with the above requirements then under section 127 (3) it would be irredeemably unenforceable (remember the agreement pre-dates the later 2006 amendments revoking sec 127).

 

v/ Therefore the default notice should not have been issued, and (under section 113 (3c) and 106 (parts a + d) of the CCA74 ) the guarantee was unenforceable, and it should never have been called upon, and now such sums should be returned.

 

 

 

So...... as I mentioned before in an earlier post, that was my original opinion.

 

 

However.... I am now doubting this?.......

 

It could be construed, that even if the PPI is indeed deemed a "charge" for credit, such "charge" is also financed by a "loan", and that is a secondary agreement to the primary loan.

 

This second subsidiary loan, DOES also contain the prescribed terms.

(amount of credit, %, and repayments)

 

Therefore, yes indeed, it is a multiple agreement;

One for the primary loan to repay borrowing,

Another for a loan to pay the premium for the PPI (regardless of whether it is considered a charge or not).

 

BUT, the prescribed terms for each loan DO appear on the agreement. Thus it was properly executed.

 

 

 

 

Anyhow, here's the agreement.

 

 

The loan account itself is now closed.

 

This was because it was a "secured" loan, and the bank issued a default, and then called in the guarantee.

 

This was then accepted as f&f of the OS balance.

 

Would like to hear others comments, either agreeing or disagreeing with the above, before I decide for certain?

 

As I say, I would dearly love to tackle this one if possible.... as they gave me a huge amount of grief over it..... and it also caused family issues due to the calling in of the security "guarantee".

 

 

 

Lloydsloan.jpg[/img]

 

Cant see ow many installments this is repayable over

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay,

 

Thank you Shakespeare & Steven,

 

I think I'm now going to act on this one after all.

 

yes, the total amount is mis-stated slightly, but I do wonder if this would be sufficient grounds ?

 

ANyhow, I think the fact that the Charges have been added to the loanare adequate grounds to have it declared improperly executed.

 

But... the first hurdle though would be the fact that the loan account is now closed.

 

So, would I first need to get the agreement re-opened under sec 138 as an extortionate credit bargain ?

 

If so.... any links to statutes, cases or other Caggers regards the re-opening of extortionate bargains.

 

I think I have sufficient grounds; including the fact that the loan was taken under duress and pressure from them in order to repay existing borrowing with themselves (which incidentally was also composed of sums equivalent to accumulated account charges imposed by they themselves).

 

I think I'm going to start a dedicated thread for this one, and will do so shortly.

 

I'll then post a link, and would someone then be able to move the relevant posts from here ?

 

Regards

 

PM

 

PS:

 

Cosalt,

The number of installments is covered by the statement under the section entitled installments, which states:

Installments will continue until the balance of the loan and any interest has been paid.

 

So, I believe this, along with the statement on the date of the month is sufficient to satisfy the prescribed terms.

 

Incidentally, it was actually shown as 84 months (7 years) on pre contract quotes etc.

 

 

NP:

The box for PPI was actually on the back page, and it definately used the term "required".

I'll try to scan and post it up when I get a chance.

 

Hi just a note

 

I think i would have a look at the unfair relationship requirements in the 2006 act depending on the date of your agrement.

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I might be missing something, but I can't see the number of repayments on this agreement ?

 

Hi Again

 

I can't work out the APR on this without the number of repayments so i cant tell whether the fees are in the right place or not

Generally however regarding the PPI

If it is a compulsarry charge it should be in the charge for credit

If there is a sepperate agreement for PPI and interest is being charged on that loan all of that should also be contained within the total charge for credit and will of course have the effect of increasing the APR.

Just becaus ther is a sepperate agreement for the PPI does not mean it can be left out of the TCC if it is a condition of the loan. see section 9(4) of the act

 

If the PPI was optional then the total credit for that insurance can be added to the principle total credit.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I though it might be good to review PM's Lloyds agreement against schedules 1 and 6 of the CC(Agreements)R1983:

 

SCHEDULE 1

 

1. It does have the nature of the agreement - "Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" although it should probably be "Fixed Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"

 

2. Parties to the agreement - OK

 

3. Description of goods - N/A

 

4. Cash price - N/A

 

5. Advance payments - N/A

 

6. Amount of credit where (3) applies - N/A

 

7. Amount of credit - not properly stated because of fee

 

8. Credit limit - N/A

8A - N/a

8B Minimum term for fixed sum agreements - seems to be missing

 

9. Total charge for credit - seems to be missing

Rate of interest - OK

A statement explaining how and when interest charges are calculated and applied under the agreement - OK

 

(exceptions a-c do not apply to this agreement)

 

10. Total charge for credit (running account or excepts 9a-c) - N/A

 

11. Total amount payable - seems to be missing

 

12. Timing of repayments - OK (© a statement indicating the manner in which the dates of the repayments will be determined.)

 

13. amount of repayments - OK

 

14. N/A

 

15. APR - OK

 

16. N/A

 

17. N/A

 

18. Variable rate of interest - OK

 

19. A statement indicating the circumstances in which any variation referred to in paragraph 18 above may occur and where that information is

ascertainable - seems to be missing

 

20. Security - I don't think this applies (it doesn't sem to apply to guarantees)

 

21. N/A

 

22. Charges - seemst o be missing (unless there aren't any)

 

23. Cancellation rights - missing

 

24. Amount payable on early settlement - missing

 

I would say there is enough there to show that this agreement is not properly executed and therefore only enforceable under s65.

 

SCHEDULE 6

 

1. N/A

 

2. amount of credit - incorrectly stated because of fee

 

3. N/A

 

4. Rate of interest - N/A

 

5. Repayments - OK - (b) amount of repayments and © frequency and timing of repayments apply

 

6. N/A

 

So, I would say that the agreement is not enforceable since the minimum requirements of s127(3) are not met

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photoman v LloydsTSB (loan).

 

Having reviewed a loan agreement I engaged in with LLoydsTSB, I have now decided that the agreement was unenforceable and so presents me with a cause of action to have it declared unenforceable.

 

The loan was secured against a personal guarantee for £4000 by my father.

 

After defaulting on the payments the bank then issued default and enforcement notices, and this guarantee was then called upon.

 

It is my intention to get the loan declared as an extortionate credit bargain and then have the courts exercise their rights to remedy the agreement under sections 137 to 139 of the CCA74.

 

The previous posts have been moved from another thread.

Edited by photoman

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

Right, thanks for moving stuff to my new thread.

 

So... I hope all you lovely peeps are not now just going to leave e here on my own !!

 

My first question is what to do first.

 

The first potential obstacle may be that this loan account is now closed.

 

As mentioned, they chose to enforce the guarantee and then considered such sum as settlement of the o/s balance.

 

So.... would I just make an application under sections 137-139 of the CCA74 as per if the agreement was ongoing ?

 

Any suggestions, similar threads, references for a starting point ?

 

I guess the first thing to then would be a prelim, setting out my cause of action, my objectives and my plans to resolve the issues?

 

So any pointers in that direction too ?

 

PM

Edited by photoman
wrong sections of CCA

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 though it might be good to review PM's Lloyds agreement against schedules 1 and 6 of the CC(Agreements)R1983:

 

SCHEDULE 1

 

1. It does have the nature of the agreement - "Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" although it should probably be "Fixed Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"

 

2. Parties to the agreement - OK

 

3. Description of goods - N/A

 

4. Cash price - N/A

 

5. Advance payments - N/A

 

6. Amount of credit where (3) applies - N/A

 

7. Amount of credit - not properly stated because of fee

 

8. Credit limit - N/A

8A - N/a

8B Minimum term for fixed sum agreements - seems to be missing

 

9. Total charge for credit - seems to be missing

Rate of interest - OK

A statement explaining how and when interest charges are calculated and applied under the agreement - OK

 

(exceptions a-c do not apply to this agreement)

 

10. Total charge for credit (running account or excepts 9a-c) - N/A

 

11. Total amount payable - seems to be missing

 

12. Timing of repayments - OK (© a statement indicating the manner in which the dates of the repayments will be determined.)

 

13. amount of repayments - OK

 

14. N/A

 

15. APR - OK

 

16. N/A

 

17. N/A

 

18. Variable rate of interest - OK

 

19. A statement indicating the circumstances in which any variation referred to in paragraph 18 above may occur and where that information is

ascertainable - seems to be missing

 

20. Security - I don't think this applies (it doesn't sem to apply to guarantees)

 

21. N/A

 

22. Charges - seemst o be missing (unless there aren't any)

 

23. Cancellation rights - missing

 

24. Amount payable on early settlement - missing

 

I would say there is enough there to show that this agreement is not properly executed and therefore only enforceable under s65.

 

SCHEDULE 6

 

1. N/A

 

2. amount of credit - incorrectly stated because of fee

 

3. N/A

 

4. Rate of interest - N/A

 

5. Repayments - OK - (b) amount of repayments and © frequency and timing of repayments apply

 

6. N/A

 

So, I would say that the agreement is not enforceable since the minimum requirements of s127(3) are not met

 

Hi

how can you possibly verify the APR without having the TAP or the TCC.

And how can you place the fees

I can give you a couple of scenarios where the fee can reside in either the tcc or the total credit simply by altering the repayment period. and still maintain an APR of 17%

That is why the regs 10(b)say that this type of agrement must have a total charge for creidt figure.

Unles of course the assumptions are used as with credit cards and i see no statutory notice on the agreement?

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

Regards your questions.

 

I'm going to scan the back page of the agreement now, and post it up on here, so bear with me.

 

I had not posted up the back page prior to this, as it most of the pertinent stuff is on the front.

 

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

Okay,

 

Here's the back page.

 

Peter (et al), as you can see, there is NO more info on the rates, no TCC, no Total amount payable etc etc (which is why I simply omitted it before).

 

However, as you can see, the only reference to the PPI is a simple tick box.

 

(**I have blurred the bit on the right where it says who is covered, but it was actually filed in)

 

 

 

This is my reasoning and evidence that the PPI was "required":

 

1/ The tick box clearly states:

 

"Is this Insurance required"

 

This has been ticked. AND, it was ticked by the manager. Thus making it "required".

 

The ticking of this box by the manager is an indication that the manager was choosing to exercise that option, and so make the insurance "required".

 

Had I instead truly had the option at such point; then attempting to exercise such option would have simply made the whole agreement irreversibly invalid anyhow !!

(As all the figures on the front would then be totally wrong).

 

ALSO: in the covering letters that came with the agreement (which I have) I was very clearly ONLY asked to only sign them (and not to consider or tick anything).

I also did not sign any other agreements or anything else.

 

 

So my contention is that the PPI was "required".

 

And this is the same word used in 4© the TCC regs.

 

Quote:

[© 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 the creditor--

 

 

Anyhow, this might just be a sideshow, as the other obvious flaws include:

 

1/ The Total amount of the loan is incorrect (..... maybe only incorrect by 35p... but the act DOES NOT allow for ANY discrepency or error, and this I believe has been backed up by case law..... which I'll try to hunt out and post up).

 

2/ The is no Total charge for Credit.

 

3/ There is no indication of the actual total amount payable.

 

4/ No statement indicating the circumstances in which any variation of interest may occur, and how it could be ascertained.

 

 

and last but not least......

 

5/ The arrangement fees (Charges) have been added to the loan contrary to statutory & common law.

 

 

PS: Peter, if you want to enter the figures into a calc to check, the duration of the loan was 84 months.

(however, even that is missing from the actual agreement.... it was only indicated as such prior to contract... but the only indication of period on the actual agreement is that I continue paying until the loan and any interest is all paid !!

 

.... that in itself to my mind alone makes it an extortionate bargain

 

.... especially coupled with the fact that all payments were made by DD....

 

So in effect they had unbridled access to my account, and the right to take:

Whatever they wished,

Whenever they wished,

and for as long as they wished) !!:mad:

 

 

 

 

Loanbackpage.jpg[/img]

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

[/b]But where does it say that?

 

 

 

IT DOESN'T....

 

 

....... ANYWHERE !!!

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

And how can you place the fees
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.

Edited by steven4064

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ??

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...