CL Finance v Questioner

[vint1954]

Couple of things questioner, The PPI claim will need to go to whoever the OC was. If you took out the Loan\CC with Halifax and who received your PPI payments, then that is your claim.

 

Regarding the PPI, you need to be claiming the full amount of PPI and any interest charged on it at the rate they charged you, so if it was a CC, monthly PPI plus compounded interest @ say 17.9%. Post claim, you then add 8% stat interest while the claim is outstanding. That is the way I read it, but others may be able to explain better.

[questioner]

Couple of things questioner, The PPI claim will need to go to whoever the OC was. If you took out the Loan\CC with Halifax and who received your PPI payments, then that is your claim.

 

Regarding the PPI, you need to be claiming the full amount of PPI and any interest charged on it at the rate they charged you, so if it was a CC, monthly PPI plus compounded interest @ say 17.9%. Post claim, you then add 8% stat interest while the claim is outstanding. That is the way I read it, but others may be able to explain better.

 

Hiya Vint

 

This was a just a lump loan and I have written to all three parties to try and get some sense out of them.

 

I have asked HBOS for the PPI back as Santander say it was their baby.

 

However CL say they had total assignment/ownership but ran off when I used the PPI word.

 

No sure about this "full amount of PPI charged bit" as all I have is the debatable agreement they sent (as on my first post) toting up to about 6k.

 

So do I just say I require the 6k plus 8% please back?:-?

 

Sorry - but I was never good with figures.

 

I am waiting to see what the 3 companies say about all this too.

Edited December 1, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

Couple of things questioner, The PPI claim will need to go to whoever the OC was. If you took out the Loan\CC with Halifax and who received your PPI payments, then that is your claim.

 

Regarding the PPI, you need to be claiming the full amount of PPI and any interest charged on it at the rate they charged you, so if it was a CC, monthly PPI plus compounded interest @ say 17.9%. Post claim, you then add 8% stat interest while the claim is outstanding. That is the way I read it, but others may be able to explain better.

 

Hiya Vint

 

This was a just a lump loan and I have written to all three parties to try and get some sense out of them.

 

I have asked HBOS for the PPI back as Santander/GE say it was their baby. I FEEL THAT GE WANT DISTANCE HERE AS THEY HAVE BEEN BADLY FINED FOR PPI MISSELLING BEFORE.

 

However CL say they had total assignment/ownership but ran off when I used the PPI word (I.E. - EH NOWT TO DO WITH US MATE - GO ASK THE OTHER 2).

 

No sure about this "full amount of PPI charged bit" as all I have is the debatable agreement they sent (as on my first post) toting up to about 6k.

 

So do I just say I require the 6k plus 8% please back?:-?

 

Sorry - but I was never good with figures. I used the CAG calc to arrive at the above figures with basic PPI figures plus interest.....

 

I am waiting to see what the 3 companies say about all this too. I THINK ALL CONCERNED ARE IN A MUDDLE OVER IT.

Edited December 1, 2009 by questioner

[steven4064]

questioner

 

You asked me to look at the agreement in the light of s18. IMHO you are right that s18 applies as this agreement has two different categories of credit:

 

1. the main loan is unrestricted use, debtor-creditor

2. the PPI is restricted use, debtor-creditor-supplier.

 

So it should be treated as two seperate loans. IMo that means that the terms prescribed in schedule 1 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations should be presnet for each loan for the agreement (actually, agreements) to be properly executed. However, I think they are - you have the amount of credit and TC shown for each loan and an APR that applies to both. Normally, the APR wouldn't be a prescribed term but it is if the repayment amount and number of repayments are not both shown. The number of repayments is the same for both loans but the amount of reapyment is only shown lumped together.

 

I think you would have a hard time convincing a court that s18 made this agreement unenforceable. Sorry.

[questioner]

Steven - thanks for the kind advice, dissapointing though it may be.

 

I had been told that seperate signature boxes were required with the s18 thing but never mind.

 

Nevertheless, Several other things are applicable including wrong agreement number on the doc, DN issues, missold PPI, illegible in parts, two pages that are not connected etc.

 

Oh yes - and no rights of cancellation either..

Edited December 1, 2009 by questioner

[steven4064]

IN theory, possibly. Recent experience has shown that violation of s18 has to be pretty blatant for a court to take any notice

[questioner]

IN theory, possibly. Recent experience has shown that violation of s18 has to be pretty blatant for a court to take any notice

 

Fair enough - I will therefore keep this one in reserve just in case ever needed in future. All grist to the mill.

 

Plently of other concerns on the go however as previously stated, but my nature is to constantly seek out weaknesses to exploit to good ends.

[questioner]

Just wondering if the following applies to this

 

Goode, Consumer Credit Law and Practice, paras: 30.102-30.103.

 

In relation to position of Signatures and Prescribed T&C It is clear that s61(1)(a) is referring to the prospective regulated agreement, so that its requirements must be fulfilled by that document and not just by another document to which it refers

 

This is Further interpreted by John McCloud, PhD, LLB, Barrister, Professor of Law, University of Liverpool:

 

On the same side as the signatures the document itself must contain the terms prescribed in the Agreement Regulations [Reg 6(1)]. To the extent that these rules refer to information which must be stated ‘together and as a whole’, that will ensure the larger list is included in the actual agreement rather than any document referred to in it.

 

With the microfiched doc on my initial post we have terms on a second page that are not clearly linked to the first page.

 

I believe that the original doc may have been destroyed as they admitted that they held such microfiched docs for "stoarge" purposes.

 

However, in view of the above I still have not had any satisfactoty answer of any party as to why they sent a doc holding a differant agreement number from the one used on all previous corresspondence and being persued by them. Where does this leave them?

 

Muddle ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[steven4064]

Just to note that, in both of the above quotes, it is the prescribed terms that are referred to, not the general T&Cs. THe prescribed terms are those given in scehdule 1 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) REgulations 1983 - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1407&d=1193875465

[questioner]

ok - so I am now studying the CCA Schedule 1 (keeping in mind that we have a form here that holds a differant agreement number to the one always used.) Requests for a Modifying Agreement (is this was to be the excuse of the creditor(s) also fell on deaf ears as well.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/171945-modified-credit-card-agreements.html#post2618972

 

The box under the APR 18.9 (relating to application for insurance cover) is not filled in - is this a term error I can highlight?

 

I actually find this box a little misleading. Could they therefore NOT have later filled this box in to suit themselves?

 

There is also no rights to cancel although it would have been a courier affair.

Edited December 2, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

Pass the buck time again

 

Just got this.......

 

[questioner]

Seeing as GE flogged it to CL with a dodgey DN attached, it would seem that CL have a case against GE....or does being stupid not count as a defence under law in rescission of contract......

 

DO SHARKS EVER BITE EACH OTHER......

Started with HBOS

 

Taken on by GE

 

Flogged to CL...

[questioner]

SANTANDER, WHO WERE GE, JUST WROTE SAYING THAT THEIR DN WAS FULLY COMPLIANT AND THAT THIS DEBT IS FULLY ENFORCABLE.

 

They seem to be saying don't bother us just tootle off and pay CL what you owe them....

 

I mean, who cares if its got the wrong agreement number on the agreement and defective DN - they sure dont....

 

Just pay up and dont ask questions ..

Edited December 24, 2009 by questioner

[citizenB]

They are bound to say that everything is ok.. The regulations say otherwise.

[questioner]

They are bound to say that everything is ok.. The regulations say otherwise.

 

Sweetest thing anyone ever said to me at Xmas

 

Have a good one.

 

xxx

[questioner]

This image is the reverse side of the CL assignment page. I have uploaded the actual CL assignment earlier.

 

This shows that the assignment was by CL and NOT GE, who previously held the file. One would have thought the GE should have been the ones to do the actual assigning here...

 

 

[citizenB]

Ok, lets try and establish ownership from beginning to current day.

 

HBOS was the original owner

 

Santander then bought all their accounts

 

Then it was sold to GE Money

 

Now CL Finance own it

 

Yes..

 

 

 

Were you advised originally that the account was bought by Santander and should there have been an assignment at that stage ?

 

Was there an assignment from GE Money to CL Finance ?

 

Should it have been HBOS or Santander who issued the Default Notice.

 

At what point in time did you stop paying and who owned it at that time ?

 

In respect of the PPI. Santander are saying that you should refer to Halifax for this. However, if they bought the accounts from Halifax, then surely they should be responsible for the refund. If not, then was the original sale nothing more than assignment. In which case, where is the Notice of Assignment from Halifax to Santander ??

Edited December 26, 2009 by citizenB

[questioner]

Ok, lets try and establish ownership from beginning to current day.

Thanks CB - I shall answer in red.

HBOS was the original owner

Santander then bought all their accounts

 

Santander were formerly GE and they appear to have had a joint venture with HBOS called Retail Financial Services (RFS) which seems to mean a shared ownership.

 

Then it was sold to GE Money -Santander told me they did the admin on it yet the account has their stamp on it from te very begining.

 

Now CL Finance own it

 

Yes.. Yes

 

 

 

Were you advised originally that the account was bought by Santander and should there have been an assignment at that stage ? Santander told me that the account was originally opened with HBOS in 05 and that GE (now Santander) took on the admin. I have no evidence of any assignment at this stage.

 

Was there an assignment from GE Money to CL Finance ? I received news of the assignment for GE to CL from CL. This image of the assignment is uploaded on a previous post on this thread.

 

Should it have been HBOS or Santander who issued the Default Notice. It was issued by GE and not HBOS. This is interesting as Sandantder are now saying that it is HBOS who are liable for the PPI and not them. Santander also went on to say they have been unable to receive transcripts from agents from the time PPI happened, so they refered me to Halixax.

At what point in time did you stop paying and who owned it at that time ? Stopped paying last summer to CL.

 

In respect of the PPI. Santander are saying that you should refer to Halifax for this. However, if they bought the accounts from Halifax, then surely they should be responsible for the refund. If not, then was the original sale nothing more than assignment. In which case, where is the Notice of Assignment from Halifax to Santander ??

Like I said this was apparently a joint venture and the only passing over/assignment performed seems to have been from GE to CL later on. This is no evidence of any assignment from HBOS to GE/Santander.. In fact BOS show very little on any of the documentation we have of this account. It is the GE logo on everything from the start.

I do know that GE have been fined in the past though for big time PPI misselling. I feel like I am being given the run around and just dont know what to do here.

 

 

Santander has however stated that they

“acquired the business of HBOS and as such took over the administration of the account. We are therefore within our rights to assign the account to a third party”

 

I cannot find any sign of any assignment from HBOS and I would imagine that Santander are committed to their own words and deeds herein with this declaration??

 

And we still have no idea why the agreement number changed during all this activity to the one that CL are hunting today.

 

Someone must be liable for PPI on this lot.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

Here's the letter stating that Santander "acquired the business" from HBOS...

 

All about defining that term: acquired the business - I suppose?

 

[questioner]

Checking back with the Notice of Assignment, it says "We hereby give you notice that GE Capital Bank Limited trading as GE Money, have by assignment dated 31st December 2007 assigned to CL Finance Limited.. absolutely.. etc, etc . The assignment is dated 10 September 2008 Why would they take 9 months to advise me of this.

We have letters relating to the new 982… acc no. from GE (with RFS title on the letter too) asking for payment from 3/1/08 and also 10/1/08- but it had already been assigned then.

 

So, IF I AM READING ALL THE CORRECTLY, GE was asking for money then on an agreement that was assigned to CL on 31st Dec 07.

[citizenB]

Ok, I have printed off all the paperwork you have sent me along with the stuff on the thread and think I have worked it out:grin: I think there has been some serious misleading going on from Santander. These are my observations.

 

 

1. The illegible agreement has the number starting 34XXXXX typed onto the document indicating this is the account number.

 

2. The illegible document states that the contract is between you and Retail Financial Services Ltd. The company registration number on that document is 3627629.

 

3. This agreement was couriered to you with a letter dated 2nd March 2005. This letter is from First National Personal Loans (a GE Company) and also bears the account number as 34XXXXX .

The company registration number is 3627629

 

This establishes ownership by GE Capital/Money.

 

4. On 18 January 2007. You receive a letter from GE Capital Personal Loan advising a payment returned. This letter also has headings indicating partnership with Retail Financial Services. On this letter at the bottom, it advises that Retail Financial Services are an appointed representative of The Bank of Scotland.

 

This letter also indicates the account number as 34XXX.

 

5. in 2007 you receive a Default notice from GE Money. This notice is corrupt in that it states 14 days from date of letter in contravention of the regulations which says there must be a specific date and 14 clear days allowing time for postage dependant on what method of postal service is used.

 

This proves that ownership is with GE Money/Capital (Retail Financial Services Ltd) and no other company in that only the original creditor is allowed to issue a default notice.

 

Now it is interesting that it is at this point that the new number starting 98XX comes into use ? Also, I note that they say the account is a RUNNING credit account.

 

It was my belief that this was a personal loan ? Please confirm.

 

If it was a personal loan on which no further borrowings were allowed then that is another fault in the DN Notice. Along with the number change as it does not identify the account properly.

 

Now we know that Retail Financial Services/GE Money/Capital/ First National are all part of the same company because their company registration numbers says so.

 

6. 10 September 2008. GE Money (Original Creditor) assigns the account to CL Finance. In respect of this move, the account is terminated with GE Money. As the DN has proved to be corrupt then this means they should not have assigned the account. The new number 98XX continues to be used.

 

7. November 2009. Letter from Santander. Who advise were previously GE Money (Full circle?) say they have taken over the administration of the account. They attempt to explain that the loan was taken out inclusive of the insurance with their Business partner HBOS.

 

This is the first time that HBOS has been mentioned.

 

8. December 2009 Santander advise that "all of the default notices WE have issued are compliant". This puts them firmly back in the camp with GE Money.. Who apparently assigned/sold the account on but are now "administering the account on behalf of CL Finance ??

 

9. In a further letter dated December 2009. Santander advise that " Santander Cards UK (formerly GE Money) acquired the business of HBOS and as such took over the administration of the accounts. We are therefore within our rights to assign the account to a third party and advise the account was assigned/sold to CL finance in August 2008".

 

10. Checking back with the Notice of Assignment, I see that it says

 

"We hereby give you notice that GE Capital Bank Limited trading as GE Money, have by assignment dated 31st December 2007 assigned to CL Finance Limited.. absolutely.. etc, etc ". The assignment is dated 10 September 2008:confused:

 

Why would they take 9 months to advise you of this. Was there any communication between you and GE Money in those 9 months.

 

It is my belief therefore that any refund for PPI should be reclaimed from GE Money.

 

However, there now appears to be further confusion with this assignment notice which according the rules.. MUST be correct also.

 

I will flag this post for more comment from the site team.

[questioner]

Thanks CB - yes I also believe that serious misgiving are afoot in this lot. Your wizardy seems to establish ownership, which is possibly the crux of the matter herein.

 

I felt that GE (now entitled Santander) are the ones who should be giving back missold PPI).

 

And I reiterate ..........

 

We have letters relating to the new 982… acc no. from GE (with RFS title on the letter too) asking for payment from 3/1/08 and also 10/1/08- but it had already (questionably) been assigned by that particular time to CL.

And yes this was just a loan and the numering disorder does not ID the account properly

 

6. 10 September 2008. GE Money (Original Creditor) assigns the account to CL Finance. In respect of this move, the account is terminated with GE Money.

We need to watch this bit for the assignment to CL was earlier, on 31st Dec 07. GE only told me about this in Sept 08

 

As you rightly say - "why would they take 9 months to advise you of this"

 

For ref, the CL Notice of Assignment is on post 65, page 4 of this thread.

 

 

I will however see what others advise, before writing back to Santander.

 

Many questions have crawed out of the woodwork on this file and something is just not right.

Edited December 27, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

Now it is interesting that it is at this point that the new number starting 98XX comes into use ? Also, I note that they say the account is a RUNNING credit account.

 

 

Yes - its was only ever a loan and never a CC- THE NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT on post 65 states this too.

 

Its as if they changed the goal posts when the number was changed.

[vint1954]

Ok, I have printed off all the paperwork you have sent me along with the stuff on the thread and think I have worked it out:grin: I think there has been some serious misleading going on from Santander. These are my observations.

 

 

1. The illegible agreement has the number starting 34XXXXX typed onto the document indicating this is the account number.

 

If the agreement is illegible then this is failure one. Documents must be legible, or they are worthless.

 

2. The illegible document states that the contract is between you and Retail Financial Services Ltd. The company registration number on that document is 3627629.

 

3. This agreement was couriered to you with a letter dated 2nd March 2005. This letter is from First National Personal Loans (a GE Company) and also bears the account number as 34XXXXX .

The company registration number is 3627629

 

This establishes ownership by GE Capital/Money.

 

4. On 18 January 2007. You receive a letter from GE Capital Personal Loan advising a payment returned. This letter also has headings indicating partnership with Retail Financial Services. On this letter at the bottom, it advises that Retail Financial Services are an appointed representative of The Bank of Scotland.

 

This letter also indicates the account number as 34XXX.

 

There can only be one creditor and one company at a time chasing a debt ( OFT guidelines ). They must not confuse the borrower.

 

5. in 2007 you receive a Default notice from GE Money. This notice is corrupt in that it states 14 days from date of letter in contravention of the regulations which says there must be a specific date and 14 clear days allowing time for postage dependant on what method of postal service is used.

 

The 14 days from date of letter is obviously incorrect in it's terminoligy. Some Judges lt this through when a specific date of rectification is not mentioned, just xxx days, however the DN fails within itself, in only allowing 14 days from date of notice. As you suggest, no time for service.

 

This proves that ownership is with GE Money/Capital (Retail Financial Services Ltd) and no other company in that only the original creditor is allowed to issue a default notice.

 

Now it is interesting that it is at this point that the new number starting 98XX comes into use ? Also, I note that they say the account is a RUNNING credit account.

 

They cannot simply change the account number without notification, nor can they change it from a Loan account to Running credit account. The only time that they could possibly change the account number, is when it is terminated and charged off. An SAR should show this. This could be the point of termination, following defective DN.

 

It was my belief that this was a personal loan ? Please confirm.

 

If it was a personal loan on which no further borrowings were allowed then that is another fault in the DN Notice. Along with the number change as it does not identify the account properly.

 

Spot on, it must identify the account.

 

Now we know that Retail Financial Services/GE Money/Capital/ First National are all part of the same company because their company registration numbers says so.

 

6. 10 September 2008. GE Money (Original Creditor) assigns the account to CL Finance. In respect of this move, the account is terminated with GE Money. As the DN has proved to be corrupt then this means they should not have assigned the account. The new number 98XX continues to be used.

 

Adds weight to the point that the account number change was the point of termination.

 

7. November 2009. Letter from Santander. Who advise were previously GE Money (Full circle?) say they have taken over the administration of the account. They attempt to explain that the loan was taken out inclusive of the insurance with their Business partner HBOS.

 

Was the account sold back to CL, following absolute assignment?

 

This is the first time that HBOS has been mentioned.

 

8. December 2009 Santander advise that "all of the default notices WE have issued are compliant". This puts them firmly back in the camp with GE Money.. Who apparently assigned/sold the account on but are now "administering the account on behalf of CL Finance ??

 

Well they are wrong, providing that the DN was issued after the change from 7 to 14 days notice.

 

9. In a further letter dated December 2009. Santander advise that " Santander Cards UK (formerly GE Money) acquired the business of HBOS and as such took over the administration of the accounts. We are therefore within our rights to assign the account to a third party and advise the account was assigned/sold to CL finance in August 2008".

 

Any assignment between HBOS and Santander? Any assignment back to GE from CL?

They are within their rights to sell the account, providing they have a compliant DN.

 

10. Checking back with the Notice of Assignment, I see that it says

 

"We hereby give you notice that GE Capital Bank Limited trading as GE Money, have by assignment dated 31st December 2007 assigned to CL Finance Limited.. absolutely.. etc, etc ". The assignment is dated 10 September 2008:confused:

 

They must do this at the point of assignment

 

Why would they take 9 months to advise you of this. Was there any communication between you and GE Money in those 9 months.

 

It is my belief therefore that any refund for PPI should be reclaimed from GE Money.

 

Yes, they are the OC, so the PPI claim goes to them. If successful, this will also alter the amount stated in the DN and assignment value.

 

However, there now appears to be further confusion with this assignment notice which according the rules.. MUST be correct also.

 

I will flag this post for more comment from the site team.

Comments as requested.

[questioner]

Thanks Vint - all great input...

 

“Was the account sold back to CL, following absolute assignment? “

 

All I have is the assignment from GE to CL - which CL informed about a long time later.

 

“Any assignment between HBOS and Santander? Any assignment back to GE from CL?”

 

No – nothing to suggest this in our records.

 

 

Santander (GE) said in last letter to pay balance to CL and that their sale was all quite "legal".

Edited December 27, 2009 by questioner