Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I’m hoping someone can help me understand what is going on with my mortgage lender. I fell into 4 months arrears but have a repayment arrangement in place for the mortgage amount & to clear the arrears this was arranged by another organisation who work on their behalf.   I have now received a court hearing date letter for 20th December for a possession hearing and I’m really confused as to why I’ve received this. I’ve contacted the organisation I arranged the repayment plan with but haven’t had a reply yet.   What is the best thing for me to do now to get this resolved? 
    • It is at the dealer that performed the service that identified the issue. I have not moved it, because even if I wanted to I came drive it now knowing what I do. I told the finance company sitting in the dealership reception.   I did not decide to take it for repair to a garage near me. I had no idea this was there until it was shown to me. I have also straight up asked them if they are happy where it is and they said yes. I have incurred no further costs outside the initial service it was due, that I have obviously no intention of claiming back.    to summarise facts: I purchased a 2015 car on HP for £31,980 in July from an independent dealer. The car has full main dealer service history and had done 36000 miles Car went in for its 6 year service at my nearest main dealer on 25th November When it came to change the spark plugs, coolant was found in the spark well for cylinder 7. I saw this myself. Could not definitely say what it was caused by (apart from the obvious - a crack) as no one had seen a similar fault so performed more diagnostic tests. I contacted finance company via their live chat informing them of issue- yes I have a transcript. Was told a complaint was raised and they would be in touch. I then went home. when I got home a form had been emailed to me to fill out that asked questions such as what I had done so far, where it is, what resolution I would like and other needless things like was it taxed or insured. I completed and forwarded the form Dealer diagnosed a crack in the cylinder heads water jacket the next morning, causing a slow leak under pressure. The dealer did not charge for the diagnosis. I asked the dealer to email me a report. I then forwarded this to the finance company with an updated version of the form sent the previous day. The following Tuesday I got an email saying they tried to phone me and asking, I quote “I understand you were in the process of getting a Diagnostic Report completed on the vehicle, please can you send this into us so we can forward this on to the dealer to investigate?” To which I sent it again, informing them I sent it the previous Friday  I contacted their customer services to ensure receipt, getting through to my case handler appears impossible. They said they had. Not having heard anything I finally managed to get through to my case handler last Thursday. They say they are waiting on the dealer. At this time I said I am raising it under my credit agreement with you to be told “ we do this everyday we need to hear from them” I get an email back, back peddling a bit saying  “Further to our conversation, we have forwarded the information and report you have sent in to the dealership <name>.  We are jointly liable with the dealership for the issues with the vehicle, however as we don't have a work shop to repair the vehicle, we give the dealership the responsibility and a single opportunity to repair the faults. Once the dealership have reviewed the information we have provided, and we receive a response from them, we will contact you to update you. ”   I then received a phone call where I was told they need their engineer to inspect the vehicle, I asked if that was necessary as they already have a report for a pretty simple fault. I was told yes. I then said I insist on being there for it. I also confirmed if the car is ok where it is. I followed up with an email summarising our call and haven’t heard anything since. I don’t want to be bent over here, nor do I want this to drag on. So I am not keen on waiting eons for the local guy from the pub to inspect it then get his mum to write a report which evidence points to being the quality delivered from the engineering company they use. I may be over cynical here but I’ve already had one crappy bit of news so why not more.   If I have to pay for it myself then try claim it back I’d probably go down a more legal route. What is a reasonable time frame to agree that the solution is to fix a crack in a lump of aluminium?    
    • This discussion has become rather stop start – mainly, I suppose, because of the difficulty you have had in getting quotes. However, could you just sum up here the cost of addressing all of these defects – and how much have you paid already?
    • SALE OF THE CENTURY: The government’s plans to sell off the UK’s vaccine manufacturing plant will leave the country vulnerable to emerging Covid variants ahead, the head of the centre behind the Oxford jab has warned.   Professor Adrian Hill told The Independent that the sale of the Vaccine Manufacturing Innovation Centre (VMIC) in Harwell was like “having been in a terrible war and you suddenly cut your defence budget substantially”.   Labour’s Wes Streeting, the new shadow health secretary, said it “would be unbelievably short-sighted and complacent” to sell off VMIC with a pandemic still raging. Meanwhile, concern mounts over the slow rollout of booster jabs. Data shows at least 300,000 housebound people haven’t yet had their booster, according to The Telegraph.   -Independent         Vaccines Manufacturing Innovation Centre, Oxfordshire, UK WWW.PHARMACEUTICAL-TECHNOLOGY.COM Vaccine Manufacturing Innovation Centre (VMIC) in Oxfordshire will become the first-ever facility dedicated for the development and...        
    • So what is the next step here?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Consumer Credit Act Regs 1983/1553


seriously fed up
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4518 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

First of all I want to own up that this is a development of part of PT2537's thread on Egg (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/188093-egg-credit-agreements-what.html),

 

it seems to me that one of his observations there re the Consumer Credit Act Regs (SI 1983/1553) - copy attached - is of wider application.

 

My point concerns,

in the first instance,

section 2 (Form and content of regulated consumer credit agreements),

which as I read these regs is the template for a properly regulated consumer credit agreement.

 

This section sets out a number of subject headings

- key financial information and key information for instance

- and specifies what should appear under these headings

(some being contingent on the nature of the agreement - for instance clearly what would be there for a fixed credit agreement would differ in some respects from a running credit - credit card - agreement).

 

We could take any particular requirement, but mainly because I was working this through with someone else, lets take default charges.

 

To find where they come in you need to go down to 4e in section 2, where you will find a reference to Key Information. There you will see a reference to paragraphs 20-24 of Schedule 1 of the same document.

 

So you find Schedule 1

(INFORMATION TO BE CONTAINED IN DOCUMENTS EMBODYING REGULATED CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENTS OTHER THAN MODIFYING AGREEMENTS)

and then find paragraph 22,

which says there should be

"A list of any charges payable under the agreement to the creditor upon failure by the debtor or a relative of his to do or refrain from doing anything which he is required to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be."

 

Now I dont know about you, but that sounds to me like default fees? :confused:.

 

Before going back to section 2,

note that the reference to the sig box is in paragraph 24,

 

I would have thought this would have to precede the signature box? Wouldnt you? This is confirmed when you get back to section 2 by paragraph 2(f).

 

my view would be that the 1983 regs in SI 1983/1553 requires the default fees to be stated in "regulated consumer credit agreements" and should precede the signature box. In fact to be consistent with section 2/ schedule 1, there is a whole lot of stuff that should precede the signature box.

 

my take on this,

is that what was intended by these Regulations, was that debtors would be sent an agreement by the creditor,

with all these detail (credit limits, repayment details etc) that they would have to read through before signing up

- or chose not to read

- before signing up.

 

That, to my mind,

is what a properly constituted agreement would look like

- all the detail preceding the signature, and not "sign this and oh,

here are the T&Cs later on". That would be a sort of "sentence first, verdict afterwards" approach.

 

So why did the banks not follow this process? Probably several reasons

 

  1. how well did the banks understand these regs? Probably pretty well I would have thought, so I dont see that as important
     
  2. did they think it would get to how things are just now with consumers not just fighting back, but fighting back from a position of knowledge? No I dont suppose they did and if it did they thought they would be ok
     
  3. it would increase costs - make them less competitive - to follow a route where a customer signs an application, they do due diligence on them and, if the applicant "passes", then they send them off an agreement to sign and return. Besides, they might decide not to go on with it? Or, they might just not send the completed agreement back
     
  4. it would be a distraction from the major aim which was to "increase market share", which is code for to increase the number of THEIR cards and thus the money that they were lending out.
     

I have CCAd more cards than I am prepared to admit to here and I have NOT had ONE example that meets the criteria of the 1983 regs.

 

I have had application forms, some with T&Cs and some without.

I have had plainly current T&Cs and perhaps contemporary T&Cs

- but none with a signature.

At this point Bennion's quote in relation to the Wilson v First Trust case comes to mind

" I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative.

It seemed right to me that if the creditor company couldn't be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable."

 

We are,

I think,

all familiar with s127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which says

 

"(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner)."

 

we need to look at 61.

This says (in its entirety)

 

"61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner,and

 

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

 

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible."

 

Attention, as far as I can see ahs tended to focus on "containing all the prescribed terms", which is clearly correct. But what about the bit preceding that it requires to be "a document in the prescribed form" - for instance with all the details preceding the signature box as set out in the 1983 regulations as set out in the first part of this thread?

 

On the other hand,

I have to admit to some concern about the second half of 127

- "unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

" At worst though, this would mean that a Court could make an enforcement order, but, it would seem arguable that it could be pointed out to the Court that there was no regulated Consumer Credit Agreement as what the debtor had presented did not conform to the requirements of either section 2 or schedule 1 of the 1983 regs.

Comments?

 

I know replying to your own post can get you locked up :lol:, but I came across this on the Liberty Claims site (yes, I know - to be avoided, but still interesting info).

 

They report on the case of Bank of Scotland v Mitchell. The details are as follows

3rd June 2009

 

A Wetherby man has had over £15,000 of credit card debt written off after Bank of Scotland backed down minutes before the case was due to be heard in a Leeds court.

 

Judge Langham at Leeds County Court believes that the bank didnt fight the case because it feared highlighting failings and opening the floodgates to further claims.

 

Self-employed Mr Mitchell, 60, had a judgement against him after delaying payments to his credit card while he waited for the bank to supply specific information that he had requested on a number of occasions.

His case was won on an appeal that his credit card application didn't contain the prescribed terms and conditions and therefore didnt comply with the Consumer Credit Act.

 

The Bank of Scotland argued that the terms and conditions had been given as a separate document when Mr Mitchell applied for the card at the Wetherby branch of Halifax, but he denies ever receiving them.

 

However, under the law, a credit agreement is only binding if it is a single document that has been signed by both parties and contains all the prescribed terms.

 

Although the Bank of Scotland gave up its fight and agreed to write off Mr Mitchells debt, amazingly they refused to pay his costs.

 

However, as a final blow to the lender Judge Langham ruled that the bank needed to pay all the costs in full and said that the bank was trying to shy away from highlighting this issue.

 

The part I am interested in has been highlighted, and my interpretation is that

 

  1. an agreement is only enforceable if it includes the prescribed terms
  2. if it has been signed by BOTH parties
  3. it is within a single document.

 

what I am suggesting

- following PT 2537 is that that document should follow the structural outline in Schedule 1 of the 1983 regs - ie the sig box is last, with the other terms (payment, default fees, etc) coming beforehand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...