Black Horse Loan & PPI DN's (case now in Court)

[mkb]

Thanks Andy - will wait til after 14th then write to ask for it

 

PS - nice to 'see' you again!

[AndyOrch]

Thanks Andy - will wait til after 14th then write to ask for it

 

PS - nice to 'see' you again!

 

Thx MKB just trying to restore some clarity:D

 

Andy

[mkb]

I'm struggling to keep my composure here guys so apologies in advance if needed

 

On 7th Dec, I got letter from court telling me that **** had til 14th Dec to fully complete the AQ since their 1st effort was incomplete.

 

Today I get letter from court again with a copy of SCuMs AQ.

 

The AQ is dated 17th NOV & in section I for other info they have written:

 

'Please see attached copy letter. The Defendant would appear to already been sent the requested information'

 

The copy letter is the cover letter which came with my SAR info!!

 

The claim was issued out of Northampton so they have not showed any proof of claim at all yet. I thought the AQ was their opportunity to prove that they had a case to bring???

 

Apparently the file has been referred to the DJ for directions.

 

Errrrm - what about the orders the DJ made for correct completion of AQ the court wrote about in early Dec?

 

How can ****'s behaviour be acceptable? If LiP's behaved like that, they would be hauled over the coals soon enough but it feels like I'm being well & truly shafted by both BH & the court here since all I'm getting is mis-information from both ends (well, I'm getting nothing from **** actually. Clearly I'm not worthy of any respect at all since I'm obviously the **** of the earth for owing money!) :mad:

 

Oooo - can you tell I'm absolutely hopping mad today???

 

 

I'm totally at a loss & need your help please cos I just don't know what, if anything, I need to do.

 

Thank you so much

Edited December 19, 2009 by mkb

[mkb]

deleted - see below post

Edited January 5, 2010 by mkb

[mkb]

 

 

Finally managed to upload

 

Please can anyone advise what I need to do next cos I'm totally lost now.

 

It appears to me that the judge has not ordered the directions I submitted with my AQ and these docs are essential to help me as they will prove mis-sold PPI therefore the amount they are claiming can never be correct

[mkb]

Please can someone advise?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello mkb!

 

Just had a quick flying look through, and a few issues pop out:

 

(1) Did you keep the envelopes that they sent the s87(1) Default Notices in? Were they 2nd Class or TNT/DHL Business Post by any chance? If so, then they may not have allowed the 14 clear days. Unless they can prove method and class of Postage, then both Default Notices are looking dubious.

 

Why?

 

Well, both dated 22/07/2009 so, if Posted 2nd Class etc, then Date of Service is +4 Working Days, which makes 28/07/2009. Then, 14 clear days from that comes to 11/08/2009. Whereas their deadline is 10/08/2009, a day short.

 

If they Posted 1st Class, then they are OK on the time issue. So, they will need to have evidence they did post on time and via 1st Class Post.

 

(2.) Their Agreements look solid at first glance, they appear to have accepted this was two Loans, a Fixed Sum Loan, and a 2nd Loan for the PPI. That explains the two s87(1) Default Notices, because they needed to send you one for each, because they are claiming you have breached both...or are they!

 

Thus, talking of Claim, their POC is pants, and not compliant with either CPR 16 or The Consumer Credit Act. You were quite right to submit an Embarrassed Defence, because their POC was a joke.

 

Are they claiming for one loan, or two, how can anyone tell? They say balance due, suggesting singular. If so, which loan?

 

(3.) The PPI could be a killer for them, because their mis-selling has shafted you on money, and that can be argued is the sole reason you have fallen behind on the payments. Thus, if your payments were sufficient to cover the loan alone, and you could've kept them up, then this is a mess of their own causing. It's a bit late for them to try and hand back the PPI, and still try to sue you for the Loan.

 

You must play this aspect for all you are worth. The PPI issue has caused the problem, not you.

 

Consider a Counter-Claim for restitution, i.e. the PPI money they took would've been used elsewhere, and they would've earned money lending your money. You should ask for that, i.e. their ill gotten gains!

 

Every little helps, and it might just bump up your Counter-Claim high enough to give them problems.

 

(4.) The nasty data entry you received in your SAR appears to be a common report from the software used by many bankers, M&S and others use the same, and it includes a lot of information that people will be shocked to learn. Title Deed number of homes, income, inside leg measurement...all grabbed via the Debt Reference Agencies and/or Price Comparison Web Sites no doubt (many run by you-know-who).

 

(5.) The numbers on their Default Notices and Claim will need to be looked at carefully. There could be some issues there that you can zoom in on. It's a bit of a mess for them, because we have two Loans, two Default Notices, two sets of default sums that you had to pay, were they right? Plus, their POC seems to be making a Claim for a single sum, is that accurate, especially now that we know the PPI is a huge problem for them.

 

Their numbers are almost certainly going to need a big revision down, and how daft will they look then, especially if you potentially have 14 day issues with the Default Notices, and then hit them with the PPI mess that has caused the whole bigger mess.

 

OK, the bad news is the Agreements, plural, look OK...not had a good look, but it's likely they are OK, unless their numbers are way out...it's also 2008, so they would have to work hard to get it wrong! But one is neutered, i.e. the PPI, so this is now all about one Loan only now, i.e. the Fixed Sum Loan.

 

Thus, you could potentially have issues with the two s87(1) Default Notices, and you have the PPI trump card to ram up where the sun don't shine.

 

These are just my first thoughts, it may help you and others to spot where to go with this next.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 7, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[mkb]

Crikey BRW - thank you so much!! Can't believe how much you've found on a quick look

 

Will digest & dig out all paperwork again but not before daylight as my bed is calling

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello mkb!

 

Will digest & dig out all paperwork again but not before daylight as my bed is calling

Good idea, I'm freezing, so I think I will head off to my pit...only warm place here!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 7, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[summerbreeze]

Hi MKB

 

Dont know if it will help but my info is that BH often shred orig agreements and microfiche them [ even recent ones ].

They are also extremely reluctant to disclose any info regarding any form of commission paid to anyone and will deny any such payments.

 

SB

[lookinforinfo]

Take a look at this-MBNA recently lost a case involving missold PPI which appears sufficient to render the whole case unenforceable.

 

 

The Consumer Forums - PPI misselling can render CCA loans unenforceable - Very significant for new CCA agreeements

 

Just found a bit more info online. It appears that because the bank did not inform the borrower that they were getting a commission on the PPI that caused an unfair relationship-so perhaps older agreements may not be covered

by having to have revealed commissions paid to the bank.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8282264.stm

Edited January 8, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello lookinforinfo!

 

Yes, indeed, these words summarise and support my point that the mis-selling of the PPI is a significant defence issue:

 

If you rip off your customers in anyway, then the consequences may well be that you will lose far more than merely a refund of premiums.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[mkb]

Hello mkb!

 

Just had a quick flying look through, and a few issues pop out:

 

(1) Did you keep the envelopes that they sent the s87(1) Default Notices in? Were they 2nd Class or TNT/DHL Business Post by any chance? If so, then they may not have allowed the 14 clear days. Unless they can prove method and class of Postage, then both Default Notices are looking dubious.

 

Why?

 

Well, both dated 22/07/2009 so, if Posted 2nd Class etc, then Date of Service is +4 Working Days, which makes 28/07/2009. Then, 14 clear days from that comes to 11/08/2009. Whereas their deadline is 10/08/2009, a day short.

 

If they Posted 1st Class, then they are OK on the time issue. So, they will need to have evidence they did post on time and via 1st Class Post.

 

I dont have the envelopes (I know, I know but I've learnt now!!) but BH always post using TNT 2nd class so agreed that the DN's are invalid, although the judge may not think 1 day too important

(2.) Their Agreements look solid at first glance, they appear to have accepted this was two Loans, a Fixed Sum Loan, and a 2nd Loan for the PPI. That explains the two s87(1) Default Notices, because they needed to send you one for each, because they are claiming you have breached both...or are they!

 

Thus, talking of Claim, their POC is pants, and not compliant with either CPR 16 or The Consumer Credit Act. You were quite right to submit an Embarrassed Defence, because their POC was a joke.

 

Are they claiming for one loan, or two, how can anyone tell? They say balance due, suggesting singular. If so, which loan?

 

DN's were sent for both the loan & the PPI & the claim is for the total of the 2. I know what you're saying but have no clue as to how to present that in any WS.

(3.) The PPI could be a killer for them, because their mis-selling has shafted you on money, and that can be argued is the sole reason you have fallen behind on the payments. Thus, if your payments were sufficient to cover the loan alone, and you could've kept them up, then this is a mess of their own causing. It's a bit late for them to try and hand back the PPI, and still try to sue you for the Loan.

 

Alas, I would still have defaulted BUT had the PPI been claimable, the PPI would have paid the loan & I wouldn't be in this bliddy mess!

 

You must play this aspect for all you are worth. The PPI issue has caused the problem, not you.

 

Consider a Counter-Claim for restitution, i.e. the PPI money they took would've been used elsewhere, and they would've earned money lending your money. You should ask for that, i.e. their ill gotten gains!

 

Every little helps, and it might just bump up your Counter-Claim high enough to give them problems.

 

Please will you help me with all this as I've no clue how to go about it?

 

(4.) The nasty data entry you received in your SAR appears to be a common report from the software used by many bankers, M&S and others use the same, and it includes a lot of information that people will be shocked to learn. Title Deed number of homes, income, inside leg measurement...all grabbed via the Debt Reference Agencies and/or Price Comparison Web Sites no doubt (many run by you-know-who).

 

Mmmm - as your cag-name suggests!

 

(5.) The numbers on their Default Notices and Claim will need to be looked at carefully. There could be some issues there that you can zoom in on. It's a bit of a mess for them, because we have two Loans, two Default Notices, two sets of default sums that you had to pay, were they right? Plus, their POC seems to be making a Claim for a single sum, is that accurate, especially now that we know the PPI is a huge problem for them.

 

The amounts on the DN's cannot be correct since I was charged £30 collection fees on the a/c on several occasions & these fees are included in the total amount claimed.

 

Their numbers are almost certainly going to need a big revision down, and how daft will they look then, especially if you potentially have 14 day issues with the Default Notices, and then hit them with the PPI mess that has caused the whole bigger mess.

 

OK, the bad news is the Agreements, plural, look OK...not had a good look, but it's likely they are OK, unless their numbers are way out...it's also 2008, so they would have to work hard to get it wrong! But one is neutered, i.e. the PPI, so this is now all about one Loan only now, i.e. the Fixed Sum Loan.

 

Thus, you could potentially have issues with the two s87(1) Default Notices, and you have the PPI trump card to ram up where the sun don't shine.

 

These are just my first thoughts, it may help you and others to spot where to go with this next.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

It has helped to clarify where I could win but I haven't a clue how to bring it all together in any coherent manner

Please will you shove me in the right direction?

 

Thank you so much again & I think I'll be saying this with great regularity

[mkb]

Take a look at this-MBNA recently lost a case involving missold PPI which appears sufficient to render the whole case unenforceable.

 

 

The Consumer Forums - PPI misselling can render CCA loans unenforceable - Very significant for new CCA agreeements

 

Just found a bit more info online. It appears that because the bank did not inform the borrower that they were getting a commission on the PPI that caused an unfair relationship-so perhaps older agreements may not be covered

by having to have revealed commissions paid to the bank.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

 

 

Thanks for that. I had already printed it off & hope to be able to use it in my arguments if BH refuse to back down before the trial date

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello mkb!

 

Do read that CAG link above WRT PPI Mis-selling and the implications on the lender in other areas, here it is again:

 

The Consumer Forums - PPI misselling can render CCA loans unenforceable - Very significant for new CCA agreeements

 

I dont have the envelopes (I know, I know but I've learnt now!!) but BH always post using TNT 2nd class so agreed that the DN's are invalid, although the judge may not think 1 day too important

 

The Judge would be wrong. It is 14 clear days from Date of Service, and Date of Service is based on Date of Postage and Class of Postage. If they cannot prove 1st Class, and you can show they nearly always use TNT Business Post or similar, then the Judge should assume they Posted via 2nd Class Post. In that case, they are 1 day short, and 1 day is enough. It is not a de minimis issue.

 

DN's were sent for both the loan & the PPI & the claim is for the total of the 2. I know what you're saying but have no clue as to how to present that in any WS.

 

No problem, let's take this gently, and then I am sure between us all here on CAG, we'll get something pulled together for you. It won't take 5 mins, and will need some dates and figures from you so we can see if any of their calculations are incorrect, especially if it comes to either of the default sums demanded in the Default Notices.

 

What we will need is the key figures, date and amounts of Loan and PPI, all payments made and when, and when you stopped paying, or what the reduced amounts were that you did pay. Then any figures they mentioned to you via Statements or letters.

 

We need to check that what they demanded was fair and/or accurate, and see if the Claim Total is accurate. We already know it has a major problem with the PPI element!

 

Alas, I would still have defaulted BUT had the PPI been claimable, the PPI would have paid the loan & I wouldn't be in this bliddy mess!

 

I would not be so hard on yourself. What you must bear in mind is the extra payments you were making for the PPI would've had an effect on everything else you did. It might have stopped you working, seeking work, or buying a winning Lottery Ticket, you name it, the loss of that money had an effect.

 

Never ever give them the impression you would've hit problems anyway, because that just plays straight into their hands.

 

You must be resolute, and stay angry about the mis-selling of the PPI. It was almost theft, but we cannot call it that, sadly. They will have used that money to lend it to others, and would have earned more money on the back of your money. Restitution is all about asking for those ill gotten gains back from them...it adds up, especially if they were lending it out at their maximum contractual rate. See if you can find out what that might be, via web research.

 

Please will you help me with all this as I've no clue how to go about it?

 

Yep!

 

The amounts on the DN's cannot be correct since I was charged £30 collection fees on the a/c on several occasions & these fees are included in the total amount claimed.

 

Excellent, looks like some unlawful charges in there too, so this all helps. It's now a case of pulling it all together.

 

I can't do this alone, but will be around to help you. The key is to help yourself, and start working on the basics. As I say, the figures and dates are important, because they are already starting to reveal cracks in their Claim...big cracks!

 

Keep reading on CAG, and I'm sure this will come together. One viable strategy is to try and make it clear they are going to have major problems, and the fact that they now only really have one loan to play with, i.e. the PPI Loan is a dead-end for them, so all they have is the actual Loan and the Default Notice linked to that, they could be in trouble.

 

If they have Terminated the Loan on the back of a defective Default Notice, then all they can claim is the Arrears on that Loan that were due before Termination. That amount could well be swamped by the PPI Counter-Claim, especially if you can add a restitution element in addition to s69 County Courts Act 1984 8% Interest.

 

This is mainly food for thought, I encourage others to jump in and help, because that's the best way to get this pulled together. CAG is a Team, so come on folks, give it your best shot to help mkb.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[mkb]

I have already notified them that their figures are incorrect in a letter I sent in Oct.

 

 

I have also put all the key figures down & worked out exactly the fees I have been charged with the dates charged. (Bizarrely, there is a fee of £90 which they waived) which shows that the DN received in July can never be accurate since it includes these charges.

 

Statement tallys with payments made:

 

BH fees.pdf

Edited January 8, 2010 by mkb

[mkb]

Would it be better asking for this to be struck-out on the basis that the amount of claim is totally incorrect or just defend their action?

 

Which avenue would be better in the long-term cos I don't want to give them a 2nd bite of the cherry!

[mkb]

Bump

[GARY68]

Hi MKB

 

Just having a read up as you know your case's mirror mine (same letters,etc)

i was looking at the figures claimed including the default/fees charged,

my question is and I dont know if others will agree but in the statements of the collection fees £25/£30.

my agreement and im sure it is the same as yours it states

 

charges if you break this agreement:

 

"if you fail to pay a monthly repayment on time then we may charge you a fee of £25 after you have been in arrears for at least 9 days ...after that we may charge you a further £30 for each month."

 

so are they right to charge or can this still be defended on the final figure?

sorry just wanted to point this out incase they used to react to this part of your defence...and indeed mine.

[Gram1]

any update on what happened here?

[mkb]

any update on what happened here?

 

Its at a sensitive stage so I have decided to limit the info for now but will be in a position to update soon I imagine