Welcome Finance - Is This Enforceable??

[ReasonableRon]

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?

 

[BEBOBEBO]

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.

[emanevs]

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.

[emanevs]

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.

[emanevs]

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.

[BEBOBEBO]

As regards to what ?

[emanevs]

" 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."

[ReasonableRon]

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.

[emanevs]

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.

[BEBOBEBO]

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.

[emanevs]

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!

[ReasonableRon]

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.

[BEBOBEBO]

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!

 

PM Sent

[ReasonableRon]

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.

[emanevs]

thanks reasonableron,

[emanevs]

Hi,

 

Does anyone know if this applies to:

 

1) secured loans

2) loans before 2006

 

many thanks

[ReasonableRon]

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.

[emanevs]

ta!

[emanevs]

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

[emanevs]

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????

[BEBOBEBO]

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

[emanevs]

thats not a mortgage indemnity fee insurance.

 

See attached from the ****

 

its taken out by the lender....

[BEBOBEBO]

I cant read this emm post up an enlarged one

[emanevs]

er we are

MIF Letter page 01.pdf

[BEBOBEBO]

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 ?????