Cl F Cca

[questioner]

Hi Folks

 

I am challenging CLF the grounds that this one is illegible in parts but would appreciate any feedback to thrown at 'em.

 

I just have these two pages messy off them and the second on has a ref number that is very hard to decipher. Also seems to have something in beteeen the date and the first numbers as if from another batch? They must have doubts too as rather than write me they have started to ring .

 

Aint their something about it all supposed to be on the same doc and not seperate sheets and I dont have any copies from anything when this was hatched several years back.

 

[questioner]

This is the second page - which is really hard to see.

 

[questioner]

I am talking to me self here I know but it does say on the top of page one

 

"set out in terms and conditions set out overleaf..."

 

and

 

"which together constitute this agreement "

 

Now I cannot make a positive/UNQUESTIONABLE connection between these hard to read 2 pages so?????????????

 

A possibly incomplete agreement?

 

Have it got any other holes in it?

[debt4get]

well for a start its barely legible, is this one document or two, because if its on the back of the first copy I believe that would make it enforceable however it is extremely difficult to read and looks like its been cobbled together

[questioner]

Thanks

 

It is two seperate A4 sheets with the date and ref number very messy/ UTTERLY unreadable on the TERMS and CONDITIONS page

[questioner]

The Fact That They Have Ignored My Challenge (FOR LEGIBLE cca DOCS) For A Month And Resorted To Phone Calls Is Perhaps Revealing Too.

 

 

looks like its been cobbled together

That was my first thought also. Edited August 20, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

They Are Being A Bit Shady Now For I Have Just Recieved A Letter And Statement Asking For My Fanancial Statement So They Can Carry On Taking A Quid A Month Off Me. No orrible threats or shgouting for more - just a nicy nice letter. - But ignoring the in dispute letter. lol.

 

Its in Dispute!

 

I FEEL LIKE WITH THEIR PHONE CALL THAT THEY ARE SHOWING THEIR HAND HERE .

Being so nice in fact .. not the actions of a kean collector who thinks they are in the right.

Edited August 21, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

I was reading Wilson case too that questioned the documentation fee being included in the credit of something which made that one unenforceable.

 

The CCA is more complex then I thought and this seems to work well for many of us.

Edited August 23, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

I know very little but am learning. I do now feel that a lot of the older pre-07 agreements that may seem enforcable to some of us are in fact not so due to slight mis-statements in the small print.

 

I think the bit under ARP in part 3 is possibly questionable

 

it does not state any figure after "You agree to pay... " its just blank???

 

It then says about paying the first monthly installment which is in fact only the courier fee of £50 - Is that not iffy on a genuine credit agreement?

 

ThIs part 3 seems to be rather confusing. Like the Wilson case perhaps - a matter of mis-statement?

 

Others, who know more than I do, have said that his CL sheet is clearly an “application form”. I have never considered this.

 

Indeed, some parts DO mention the words "application" and "applicants".

 

I am also unsure about the legality of the bit under data protection too which says –

 

“I am entitled to disclose information about any co-applicant and ………. and to authorise you to search/and or record information at credit reference agencies about each of us .”

 

This latter may be inappropriate but I am just seeking holes in this as usual. How can one person authorise the searching of info for another - questionable perhaps?

 

Just something in this lot does not add up - just cannot put me finger on nit yet. I know it is stirring me in the face.

 

Until someone with a legal brain can finally tell me more the only thing I seem to have is the fact that the 2 sheets are pretty hard to read and may be unrelated due to illegible ref numbers on bottom of pages making it an incomplete deal.

 

Anyone?

 

 

 

Almost all agreements where PPI has been mis-sold automatically invalidate the agreements. Most agreements have incorrectly stated APR, incorrect or hidden charges and wrongly stated total costs.

 

What does all this mean and does it apply to my case above?

 

I have never been told about any on this?

 

I found it on this site.

 

http://www.consumercredit-action.com/claims-unfair.html

Edited August 24, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

Just been watching

 

PPI Reclaiming Guide: £1,000s for missold loan insurance...

 

I am now wondering if this mis-selling of credit insurance applies to the scan I have uploaded here. Its a large figure. It seems that this would put a new light of simply asking for CCA docs.

 

THIS IS OFF ANOTHER SITE ............

 

• Block premiums run for a maximum of 60 months and can leave the borrower without cover for loans which exceed 5 years.
  

 

 

The CL one scanned here has credit insurance (presumably what they call PPI?) for 84 months which seems to work for me as case of mis-selling.

 

I also hear that other consumer sites are exploring the possibilities related to eariler PPI flaws and consumers claiming refunds due to misselling along with if this makes agreements more unenorcable (as logic would dictate) - is CAG chasing this one up too?

Edited August 26, 2009 by questioner

[citizenB]

Have you made a Subject Access Request for this account ? If you believe you have been mis sold a protection insurace:

 

either it wasnt suitable for reasons of health issues that would have excluded you from claiming.

 

you were self employed.

 

you were advised it was compulsory ie that you wouldnt get the loan without the insurance.

 

then those are all good reasons for a a claim.

 

Was this account initially dealt with over the phone and then couriered to you ? It looks as though all the amounts were typed in and then presented to you for signature.

 

Were you given any information as to regards the insurance, told you could go elsewhere if it was necessary for the loan to be covered. This kind of information could possibly be found in data provided under the SAR.

[questioner]

Have you made a Subject Access Request for this account ? If you believe you have been mis sold a protection insurace:

 

either it wasnt suitable for reasons of health issues that would have excluded you from claiming.

 

you were self employed.

 

you were advised it was compulsory ie that you wouldnt get the loan without the insurance.

 

then those are all good reasons for a a claim.

 

Was this account initially dealt with over the phone and then couriered to you ? It looks as though all the amounts were typed in and then presented to you for signature.

 

Were you given any information as to regards the insurance, told you could go elsewhere if it was necessary for the loan to be covered. This kind of information could possibly be found in data provided under the SAR.

 

 

These seem to be apt............

 

1) I was self employed at the time and you were aware of this.

2) This was a joint account yet, I believe that only the “first named” person was covered. This means that cover was only partial. This was very unfair and quite worthless.

3) I was never given any appropriate professional, unprejudiced advice or choice over this product by you. I had no idea what PPI was then and what it entailed.

4) I was given the overall impression that PPI was an essential component that one had to have without question.

5) I had my own business insurance (being self-employed) therefore PPI would never have been relevant to me. Moreover, I believe that on the basis that I had business insurance any prospective claim in the PPI field would have ever been accepted by the PPI seller.

6) I was not ever informed that I could obtain cheaper alternative PPI elsewhere, if required either. This latter concern has now been the subject of an enquiry by the Competition Commissioners Office who were especially critical of PPI

7) I honestly have serious doubts that I ever even said yes to any PPI, believing that any tick box on any application form may have been ticked already, prior to me seeing this.

 

and yes - SAR now in..........

[questioner]

This one has now evolved into this one.......

 

And still fighting to see how is going to pay up on PPI

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/218262-cl-finance-questioner-7.html

[citizenB]

Q, should this thread be merged with the other one ?

[questioner]

Hi CB

 

I am easy about this, but if you think it best then that is fine with me .......

 

 

Many thanks for all help - which is greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

Q