GE Woodchester Car Finance loan to Link Outsourcing

[beachcomber60]

Thank you Steven,

 

starting to think I was alone

 

The ppi has fallen into the background after Pauls findings, GE (as they were called at the time) wrote back within a couple of days of my mis selling letter stating that they werent regulated by the FSA at the time so basically sod off!

 

Then after Paul found the agreement was flawed I concentrated on trying to get the loan written off due to his findings.

 

OH is worried that, with everything else going on here at the moment, they may try and carry out their threat of obtaining a charging order that they previously stated in a letter.

 

Beachy

[steven4064]

What has their regsitration with the FSA got to do with mis-selling PPI. If it was mis-sold then I would think you should just carry on with the claim

[beachcomber60]

They stated at the time (and again repeated today) that if I wasnt happy is to contact the FLA, which is a complete waste of time.

 

I take it that I need to forget Pauls findings & persue the ppi claim?

 

Thought we had a winner with what Paul informed me about the agreement

[steven4064]

What did Paul say about PPI? I would never suggest forgetting anythinhg he said - that would not be sensible

[beachcomber60]

Thanks Steven,

 

Below is a letter Paul drafted for me to send:-

 

Dear Sirs

 

I write in respect of the credit agreement which you supplied in response to my statutory request.

 

I would ask that you forward this to your legal department as it contains points which should be answered by a solicitor or someone with legal expertise. failure to answer the points raised within this letter could lead to legal action against your company.

 

I note that you have supplied me with a copy of the signed agreement and i am now aware of some defects within this document which i would like to invite you to comment upon.

 

The form and content of a regulated agreement is set out within section 60 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Under section 60 the secretary of state is empowered to make regulations as to the information which a regulated agreement must contain to comply with the act.These regulations are the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983(SI1983/1553)

 

The agreement clearly has payment protection insurance however there are no details on the amount of credit or cash price of this policy. According to Schedule 1 Para 4 Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) the agreement should state the cash price of the payment protection policy. in addition schedule 1 para 6 SI 1983/1553 states that the agreement must state the amount of credit to be provided for the payment protection policy.

 

the agreement fails to accuratley state the total amount which i will be required to pay in an accurate statement as no account is taken for the PPI policy, this is a breach of schedule 1 para 11 SI 1983/1553 and i also note that the agreement has no mention of any default or late payment charges, this is a clear breach of schedule 1 para 22 SI 1983/1553

 

These defects are sufficiently serious to leave the agreement improperly executed as set out within s61 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

However there are some more serious defects which need addressing.

 

Turning our attention to Schedule 6 Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 , the terms set out within this schedule are required for compliance with section 61(1)(a) Consumer Credit Act

 

The agreement fails to comply with schedule 6 para 1 which requires a term stating the amount of credit for the payment protection insurance. Failure to state a prescribed term correctly or at all renders the agreement unenforceable by virtue of section 127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore the court would not, notwithstanding the defects which are set out in respect of schedule 1 SI 1983/1553, be able to make an order for enforcement of this agreement. This principle is enshrined within a mass of case law which includes judgments from the House of Lords in the case of Wilson and First County Trust.

 

On the back of legal advice, i am advised that the provisions of s127(3) are still effective for agreements entered into prior to 6th April 07. This is set out within schedule 3 para 11 of Consumer Credit Act 2006

 

 

Therefore i would invite you to consider these points and close the account and discharge me from all liabilities under this agreemeent and remove all adverse data on my credit file. should you refuse to follow my request, then i will have no option but to take legal action and bring the matter before the court to ask the court to make a declaration pursuant to section 142(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I trust this wont be necessary and that you will comply with this request, i would ask for a reply by no later than 4pm on 15th January 2009

 

 

yours .......

 

 

Beachy

[beachcomber60]

Steven,

 

Following is Paul second letter which he drafted for me following GE's fob off reply:-

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachcomber60

Response from GE arrived.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sir

 

Thank you for your letter dated XXXXXX the contents of which i note.

 

If it is your view that the payment protection policy is not credit, then it must be a charge for credit and must be incorporated within the total charge for credit ( see s9(4) CCA 1974)

 

accordingly the total charge for credit would be misstated as you have failed to incorporate this correctly into the total charge for credit and accordingly the agreement is improperly executed. In addition the APR would be incorrectly stated as a result of this point due to the fact that it would fail to incorperate the cost of the PPI into the Total charge for credit calculations

 

If you are of the view that the policy was cancellable then i would ask you to confirm where this provision is set out within the contract as i am unaware of such a provision.

 

in response to your comment that you could not have ascertained the cost of the policy i cannot agree with this statement, clearly it requires little maths to work out that 60 payments of £41.91 clearly equals £2514.60 therefore it is simple maths to calculate the cost of the policy over the term of the agreement

 

As previously stated, i do not believe the agreement is properly executed , it would be my submission that either the PPI is credit in which case my previous letter stands or that in light of your view, the policy must be a charge for credit and accordingly the agreement is improperly executed

 

I look forward to your response

[beachcomber60]

Should I take THEM to court over PPI even though the agreement is duff

 

or

 

Should I wait for THEM to take me to court & fight them over the agreement & counter claim the PPI.

 

Sorry but I am a complete novice at this.

[alanalana]

Should I take THEM to court over PPI even though the agreement is duff

 

or

 

Should I wait for THEM to take me to court & fight them over the agreement & counter claim the PPI.

 

Sorry but I am a complete novice at this.

 

I would tend to tread carefully as if it goes to Court they may just magically produce a true copy of the CCA which they have not disclosed to you. You could complain to the Information Commissioners Office and ask them to enforce GE to release all the documentation they have. If GE then say they have already released it. it would be difficult for them to produce an undisclosed document in court.

 

hope this helps

 

aa

[beachcomber60]

Evening aa,

 

Now I am REALLY confused - I have a true copy of the agreement the original I forgot to sign & return, they then sent another set which was signed and returned to them - both sets were identical.

 

So after Pauls spendid work early in the thread I am starting to think it was all in vain, although Paul said its absolutely duff there doesnt seem to be anything I can do except to start paying them again, I fully expect codered to turn the thumb screws next week now Ive had a final response (yet another template letter) from GE/Santander.

 

If Pauls findings is so cast iron proof, I'm not doubting is word, then I really need advice as to what I should do, I dont want to sound ungreatful but it seems I've been told the problem and then cast aside, when Paul told me what was wrong with the agreement I honestly thought I would have had the help & support in taking on GE if it was that bad an agreement.

 

I just dont know what to do with this one now, if it is enforceable then please tell me so I can try and make an arrangement with them.

 

Sorry if I'm harking on a bit but with recent events at home I am at a fairly all time low at this present time.

[pompeyfaith]

Beachy if both sets of agreements are identical in wording and layout then pauls comments still stand whether it is signed or not.

 

As for the charging order to get get that they would first have to take you to court and get a CCJ without a CCJ there hands are tied.

 

Is this thread in the legal forum as i think its about time it was and if they do proceed to court thats the forum where you will get plenty of legal advice.

 

I now it is a hard and tough to go though but please hang in their as there are plenty of people with legal knowledge who have been to court and know the CPR.

 

Regards

 

PF

[beachcomber60]

Thank you PF,

 

I hope I didnt come across disrespectful with my last post, I truely thank PT, AA, Steven & your good self's valued help thus far. Perhaps with hindsight I should have worded my post a wee bit better.

 

Like both you & aa its been my turn this week to deal with a bereavement of a close family member, having someone you love dearly being kept alive by a machine & then watching as its turned off is something I hope I never have to go through again, it has also been a week when it seems all my creditors decided to crawl out the woodwork to come snappping at my ankles at the same time.

 

Ive got so frustrated in trying to communicate with GE over Pauls findings, no matter what I write or who I send it too it always end up in the same department where I get the standard 'your complaint is unfounded - this is enforceable' reply.

 

Perhaps you are right in that I should start a new thread in the legal section, rather then move this one I'd be better to start a fresh more condensed version.

 

Once again I hope I wasnt taken outa context - it wasnt meant to be, I felt pretty lonely so far as advice was concerned & merely wanted guidence as to what options were open to me in dealing with this, thought we had GE bang to rights with this one.

 

In short - they wont entertain reclaim of ppi based on them not being regulated at the time of the loan as taken out, been sent a defective DN, following Pauls eyeballling the agreement its improperly executed with several flaws, GE are adament its fully compliant with threats of a charging order & have now set a dca called CodeRed loose on me - god after writing this last paragragh no wonder I'm feeling so depressed.

 

At least theres no post on Sundays !

 

Beachy

Edited July 5, 2009 by beachcomber60
Spelling

[pompeyfaith]

Hiya Beachy,

 

First of all at all I fully understand how you feel I have been there myself and survived.

 

They did not get a CCJ or a Charging Order because like yours there where to many errors in there documents.

 

Ok so I got a consent order for £20 a month but i can live with that knowing my home is safe and that it cannot be increased.

 

Now as for you Beachy at the end of the day its your call as to whether you make an agreement with them or let them take you to court.

 

But on the face of it id say you have a case worth fighting hence why i said start a thread in the legal forum.

 

Can I ask so I don't have to trace back what are your reasons for being mis-sold the PPI.

 

I ask because if those reasons are sound and good I would be inclined to let them take you to court because on that alone is a good defence which you can counter-claim.

 

Have a think about this over the day or so and then post back.

 

Above all beachy do not worry yourself as there are plenty of good folk here that will help you out.

 

Regards

 

PF

[alanalana]

In short - they wont entertain reclaim of ppi based on them not being regulated at the time of the loan as taken out, been sent a defective DN, following Pauls eyeballling the agreement its improperly executed with several flaws, GE are adament its fully compliant with threats of a charging order & have now set a dca called CodeRed loose on me - god after writing this last paragragh no wonder I'm feeling so depressed.

 

Do not the dca issue give you any grief. These alleged retards are the **** of the earth. I am dealing with some myself by completely ignoring all their mail, threats, they use the hard approach followed by the softly softly approach. followed by the hard approach in any other language it would be called torture and be classed as illegal in fact it is illegal. see this

 

Results within legislation - Statute Law Database

 

aa

[beachcomber60]

Thank you both so much, I can honestly say life sucks at the moment - since last Saturday we've 'lost' another two - so it is true that these things happen in three's.

 

Returning to the problem at hand, they have written to me and told me in no uncertain terms that I am liable until the debt is repaid in full & that they are charging me £30 a month 'penalty' since I withheld payments to them.

 

Regarding mis selling ppi - at the time I was self employed (still am), it was a top up loan from a car finance loan (without ppi), they said that as it was a top up loan & I wasnt financing a new car I would be looked at more favourably if I had ppi added even though I was self employed, I wasnt asked if I had alternative insurance nor were exclusions etc explained to me, I have never received a policy booklet or certificate.

 

When I initially wrote claiming mis sold ppi I had a reply back within 4 days of my letter stating that as they werent regulated by the FSA at the time my complaint is rejected.

 

Whats is my objective? Either they zero the account (as per PT's findings) & forget the ppi claim OR they refund the ppi with interest which would be enough to wipe the remaining balance of the loan.

 

Thats basically where things stand at the moment.

 

Beachy

[beachcomber60]

Hi PF,

 

One more funeral on Tuesday then I need to get on with life again.

 

Any views on the previous post regarding mis selling the ppi?

 

Have received a second DN from Santander (first was November), didnt think a debt could be defaulted more than once ?

 

Once we have the house back to ourselves I will start a new thread in the legals, but its awkward trying to do CAGGING when we have family staying with us - hence why Iam posting this in the wee hours

 

beachy

[alanalana]

Hi PF,

 

One more funeral on Tuesday then I need to get on with life again.

 

Any views on the previous post regarding mis selling the ppi?

 

Have received a second DN from Santander (first was November), didnt think a debt could be defaulted more than once ?

 

Once we have the house back to ourselves I will start a new thread in the legals, but its awkward trying to do CAGGING when we have family staying with us - hence why Iam posting this in the wee hours

 

beachy

 

Hello beachy I am not up on the legal stuff but I believe you are correct on the issuing of a second DN especially if the first was defective in any way.

 

I am sure there is a thread on this subject somewhere on the site.

 

I will post up if I find it. Have a search yourself and also have a good look in here.....

 

Debt Collection Industry

 

and also here....

 

 

Legal Issues

 

there is hopefully something to assist in these.

 

aa

[beachcomber60]

I have been advised to start a new thread in the Legals due to Santander getting very heavy.

 

Brief outline of my problem:-

 

Started a PPI reclaim from GE Woodchester back in Novemeber '08, had a response within a couple of days of my letter stating that the compliant was rejected (solely) because they were not regulated by the FOS.

 

PT was then asked to alanalana to check the agreement as there was something not right with it, PT then found numerous errors within the agreement and concluded that it was improperly executed & that I should write to Woodchester outlining the 'faults' and request the account be zero'd as it was completely unenforceable.

 

After playing 'ping pong' with GE all went quiet until they were taken over by Santander who, after I outlined my compliant, have stated that I am completely wrong and enforcement will commence, including the possibility a charging order. They have also stated that they are adding £30 a month in default charges to the account from when I stopped paying them.

 

The agreement is :-

 

 

Second page :-

 

 

Statement of Account :-

 

 

 

PT's findings are :-

 

uh oh, its a multiple agreement, s18CCA 1974

 

but what's that i see no amount of credit for the Insurance policy or any information on the cash price of the policy?

 

well i think they be royally shafted

 

Followed By :-

 

the statement is a red herring

 

it must state the financial particulars within the agreement not on seperate pieces of paper

 

the true cost of credit must be made clear to the borrower when they enter credit. the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a consumer protection act which was enacted to protect you not the lender

 

that agreement is undoubtedly improperly executed , what is the date of the agreement? when was it signed by you?

 

as for liability, the PPI could be a blessing in disguise mate as it could be the straw that breaks the camels back so to speak

 

And finally :-

 

ok, down to the breaches of the CCA (section 60)

 

the agreement fails to state the cash price of the PPI schedule 1 para 4 SI 1983 / 1553

 

the agreement fails to state the amount of credit (PPI) this breaches schedule 1 para 6 SI1983 /1553

 

the agreement fails to correctly state the total amount payable, this is a breach of schedule 1 para 11 SI 1983 / 1553

 

the agreement fails to state the default charges as required by schedule 1 para 22 SI 1983 / 1553

 

 

moving on to schedule 6 SI 1983 . 1553 Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983

 

the agreement fails to comply with schedule 6 para 1 in relation to the amount of credit for the PPI

 

now then thats a nice list, wonder if they would like to ask the court to consider these points>>>>>>>

 

Basically the agreement is improperly executed and therefore unenforceable as a result

 

GAME OVER

 

Special Thanks To PT

 

Any advice on getting these muppets to take notice would really be appreciated as I cannot get past their compliant resolution officers and they have given their final response in that this is deadlocked and they are pursueing enforcement.

 

Beachy

[beachcomber60]

Anyone

[beachcomber60]

I seem to be alone

[Spamalot]

Hi Beachy. Welcome Back

 

It would be my instinct to give them the mexican stand off and let them try and enforce it 'cause if they took it to court it would likely be thrown out.

Do you have any other documents like defaults etc. or is it just that dodgy agreement.

It really does seem to me that they are just trying it on hoping you'll cave in.

 

Spam.

[beachcomber60]

Thanks Spam, Just needed a bit of reassuring.

 

If they do try it then I will defend it vigoursly & counter claim mis selling the PPI (which they have already stated they wont entertain).

 

They've already set a dca CodeRed (what a name - sounds like sumfin outa James Bond) on my trail.

 

Yes I do have a DN but I dont think its in the prescribed format - will try and scan it up later - going out shortly (looking for that Ferrari via McDonalds :grin:)

 

Back to work tonight

[Spamalot]

There are some good legal eagles on this forum, so if you can post up what documents you've got we'll see if we can rip them to shreds for you.

 

Drive carefully in that new Ferrari now.

 

Spam.

[beachcomber60]

To go with the above the following is the DN they sent me, right away I see that they havent given enough time, it was post using the dreaded dca friendly UK Mail - didnt know at the time about keeping the envelope.

 

 

 

 

[tifo]

I seem to be alone

 

I think it's cos most of us don't really know what makes an agreement truly unenforceable.

 

For example, many people would look at that and say it's OK, credit details are shown etc as is the monthly payment for PPI. What PT has stated is an eyeopener ....

[beachcomber60]

I think it's cos most of us don't really know what makes an agreement truly unenforceable.

 

For example, many people would look at that and say it's OK, credit details are shown etc as is the monthly payment for PPI. What PT has stated is an eyeopener ....

 

Thanks Tifo,

 

I fell off the chair when PT came back with his findings, Woodchester/Santander wont budge from their current stance regarding this or PPI.

 

Trouble is Iam a complete novice as far as anything like this, until we hit the financial buffers last year I would never have believed that we could question the banks etc.