Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • 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 
        • 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

Welcome Finance - Is This Enforceable??


emanevs
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4833 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

I see where you are coming from on this, and have checked the figures out as best as I can.

 

The correct APR is 17.36924, so the rate they have quoted is within the 0.1% tolerance allowed. The total cost of credit is correct and quoted on the agreement, so it cannot really be said that there is a hidden charge because it all adds up.

 

Whether they have calculated the amount of interest correctly from the 14% rate they have quoted, and whether this includes interest on the fee or not is still unclear, however as far as I am aware the prescribed term is the APR, which is definitely correct. There was a recent case involving Northern Rock in which the judge seemed to dismiss an argument that the borrowing rate was entered incorrectly - I will try and find it for you.

 

As for the rest of the issues you raise - where you not given a cooling off period when you took it out? With it being a secured loan you should have been sent advance copies and given (I think) seven days before being asked to sing the original copy.

 

Have you challenged any of this already?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 717
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Emm, you have to listen to what people are telling you, the is nothing legally wrong with your agreement, do not take these people to court. as Ive said before instead of looking for potential "technicalities" you need to fully understand how your agreement is calculated then it will become clearer. For any CCA to be found unenforceable it has to be totally wrong. Mere technicalities the FOS and a Judge will just say "you was happy when you got the money" this has been proven in recent FOS replies Ive seen.

I again ask the question "How many agreements on the CAG have you seen that has been deemed as unenforceable?".

I know its hard to give in because as you know my case is exactly the same as yours, Ive resigned myself to the fact I should have spent more time reading my contract before I signed it because Im now in more debt then I ever was. I was was given false information from people that are highly respected on here only to find out it was a load of rubbish, have you not ever asked yourself where these people dissapear to when the stuff hits the fan ? you dont hear from them.

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you are coming from on this, and have checked the figures out as best as I can.

 

The correct APR is 17.36924 (IS THIS WITH INTEREST ON THE MIF??), so the rate they have quoted is within the 0.1% tolerance allowed. The total cost of credit is correct and quoted on the agreement, so it cannot really be said that there is a hidden charge because it all adds up. - BUT NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THEY CAN CHARGE INTEREST ON A MIF POLICY??, AND THEIR NOTE UNDER INTEREST RATE DOES NOT REFER TO THIS BEING CHARGED.

 

Whether they have calculated the amount of interest correctly from the 14% rate they have quoted, and whether this includes interest on the fee or not is still unclear, however as far as I am aware the prescribed term is the APR, which is definitely correct. There was a recent case involving Northern Rock in which the judge seemed to dismiss an argument that the borrowing rate was entered incorrectly - I will try and find it for you.

 

As for the rest of the issues you raise - where you not given a cooling off period when you took it out - NO ? With it being a secured loan you should have been sent advance copies and given (I think) seven days before being asked to sing the original copy.

 

Have you challenged any of this already?

YES - WITH THE OMBUDSMAN NOW, AND OF COURSE IN COURT!!

 

Thanks reasonableron, if you can give me any further info and post up that would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emm, you have to listen to what people are telling you, the is nothing legally wrong with your agreement, do not take these people to court. as Ive said before instead of looking for potential "technicalities" you need to fully understand how your agreement is calculated then it will become clearer. For any CCA to be found unenforceable it has to be totally wrong. Mere technicalities the FOS and a Judge will just say "you was happy when you got the money" this has been proven in recent FOS replies Ive seen.

I again ask the question "How many agreements on the CAG have you seen that has been deemed as unenforceable?".

I know its hard to give in because as you know my case is exactly the same as yours, Ive resigned myself to the fact I should have spent more time reading my contract before I signed it because Im now in more debt then I ever was. I was was given false information from people that are highly respected on here only to find out it was a load of rubbish, have you not ever asked yourself where these people dissapear to when the stuff hits the fan ? you dont hear from them.

 

Thanks Bebo for the post.

 

However, I have certainly not given up, and dont intend to either.

 

Whether I am right or wrong time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emm, you have to listen to what people are telling you, the is nothing legally wrong with your agreement, do not take these people to court. as Ive said before instead of looking for potential "technicalities" you need to fully understand how your agreement is calculated then it will become clearer. For any CCA to be found unenforceable it has to be totally wrong. Mere technicalities the FOS and a Judge will just say "you was happy when you got the money" this has been proven in recent FOS replies Ive seen.

I again ask the question "How many agreements on the CAG have you seen that has been deemed as unenforceable?".

I know its hard to give in because as you know my case is exactly the same as yours, Ive resigned myself to the fact I should have spent more time reading my contract before I signed it because Im now in more debt then I ever was. I was was given false information from people that are highly respected on here only to find out it was a load of rubbish, have you not ever asked yourself where these people dissapear to when the stuff hits the fan ? you dont hear from them.

 

HI BEBO,

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD START YOUR OWN THREAD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" I was was given false information from people that are highly respected on here only to find out it was a load of rubbish, have you not ever asked yourself where these people dissapear to when the stuff hits the fan ? you dont hear from them."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and come back tomorrow with the court case details, but in answer to your question above about the APR - yes, the APR must take into account the TOTAL cost of borrowing and does not concern itself with whether this cost is made up of interest or fees (or both) - it is just a total cost.

 

The total cost is pretty clear on your agreement and the APR is within allowed tolerances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and come back tomorrow with the court case details, but in answer to your question above about the APR - yes, the APR must take into account the TOTAL cost of borrowing and does not concern itself with whether this cost is made up of interest or fees (or both) - it is just a total cost.

 

The total cost is pretty clear on your agreement and the APR is within allowed tolerances.

 

TA! ReasonableRon!!

 

The figures and apr will only work if they are allowed to charge interest on a Mortgage Indemnity Fee Policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thats a very good idea as new but I dont think it will be a very constructive thread :). maybe its just me but thats my personal opinion.

I hope my post didnt offend you as it wasnt intended to. end of the day wether you take my advice or not its down to you. I just wanted to help through what has happened in my case.

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thats a very good idea as new but I dont think it will be a very constructive thread :). maybe its just me but thats my personal opinion.

I hope my post didnt offend you as it wasnt intended to. end of the day wether you take my advice or not its down to you. I just wanted to help through what has happened in my case.

 

Not at all BEBO, none taken.

 

I must admit, I havent heard anything from the so called top caggers.

 

All mouth no trousers they are, ha,ha

;)

 

Perhaps the **** are too good for them.......?

 

not me tho!

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

TA! ReasonableRon!!

 

The figures and apr will only work if they are allowed to charge interest on a Mortgage Indemnity Fee Policy.

 

Not exactly true - I was able to verify the APR just by knowing the amount of the cash loan, the term and the monthly payment.

 

Any difference between the total repayable and the actual cash loan is a cost of credit. It doesnt matter if the cost of credit is made up of interest, fee, interest on fee, MIF, interest on MIF or anything else they can think of - its all part of the overall cost.

 

I personally think that it would be very dangerous to start a legal challenge over this matter - the sums involved would send this straight to fast track and the cost consequences of losing would be unthinkable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all BEBO, none taken.

 

I must admit, I havent heard anything from the so called top caggers.

 

All mouth no trousers they are, ha,ha

;)

 

Perhaps the **** are too good for them.......?

 

not me tho!

:D

 

PM Sent :D

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case I was thinking of yesterday was Brooks v Northen Rock, which raised quite a few issues concerning a loan agreement - some of which surround the accuracy of the, and the type of, interest rate that can be quoted aside form the APR.

 

Click here for a commentry - it helps to give an idea of how difficult it could be to successfully challenge in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The regulations you mention are part of a suite of new regulations being introduced as part fo the European Consuemr Credit Directive.

 

They will apply to unsecured loans that will be taken out from 1 February 2011.

 

It will not apply to loans secured on land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you are coming from on this, and have checked the figures out as best as I can.

 

The correct APR is 17.36924, HOW DO YOU CALCULATE THIS, AND ON WHAT LOAN AMOUNT?

so the rate they have quoted is within the 0.1% tolerance allowed. The total cost of credit is correct and quoted on the agreement, so it cannot really be said that there is a hidden charge because it all adds up.

 

Whether they have calculated the amount of interest correctly from the 14% rate they have quoted, and whether this includes interest on the fee or not is still unclear, however as far as I am aware the prescribed term is the APR, which is definitely correct. There was a recent case involving Northern Rock in which the judge seemed to dismiss an argument that the borrowing rate was entered incorrectly - I will try and find it for you.

 

As for the rest of the issues you raise - where you not given a cooling off period when you took it out? With it being a secured loan you should have been sent advance copies and given (I think) seven days before being asked to sing the original copy.

 

Have you challenged any of this already?

 

 

see above

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT - CREIDT CHARGES AND APR

 

PAGE 08:

 

TOTAL CHARGE FOR CREDIT:

 

SECTION H: INSURANCE PREMIUMS

 

"PREMIUMS UNDER ANY INSURANCE CONTRACTS OTHE THAN THOSE DESCRIBED IN S1.f ABOVE ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL CHARGE FOR CREDIT"

 

As the "****" have included the MORTGAGE INDEMNITY FEE (WHICH IS CLEARLY AN INSURANCE) in the "total charge for credit" is that very naughty???, and subsequently unenforceable????

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. CHARGES INCLUDED IN THE TCC

Apart from those items specifically excluded (see the next section), the TCC

includes any of the following charges which are payable by the borrower or

the borrower’s relative:

a. Charges payable under the credit agreement

The interest on the credit and any other charges payable under the

agreement, such as documentation or administration fees or an option to

purchase fee under a hire-purchase agreement.

b. Charges payable under a linked transaction

The term ‘linked transaction’ has a broader meaning in some of the Act’s

provisions but in this case means a transaction entered into under a term of

the credit agreement. Any charges payable under linked transactions.

c. Charges payable under other mandatory contracts

Any charges payable under any other contracts which the lender requires the

borrower or a relative of the borrower to make or maintain as a condition of

being granted the credit.

d. Security charges

If the lender requires the borrower or the borrower’s relative to provide

security for the agreement (in the form of a charge on property, the proceeds

of an insurance or investment, documents, or in any other way), any charges

payable under the contract for security. (THIS IS THE MIF EMM)

 

See page 9 onwards for excluded items.

 

Bebo

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emm, For a start MIF is not "Insurance" its a "Fee". Yes it is taken out be the lender and is a FEE which they charge to you.

 

In a previous post you stated you wanted to see it "From the Horse's mouth" how Welcome calculate interest, I can see from the above dated 15th DECEMBER 2009 that they have explained this in full to you. So you found out months before I did. Which leads me to ask why are you STILL disputing this and advising fellow Caggers other wise ?????

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...