1st Cred v Questioner

[questioner]

Ok – it is now time to have a look at this one, which was the bulging file that first got me into the CAB site.

 

I CCA’d 1st Crud back in summer 2008. Since that time they have sent me several (6 I think) illegible copies of the following application sheet ….

 

 

I have received tons of threatograms as you can imagine from these muppets which I mentioned previously on this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/64655-1st-credit-15.html

 

 

Rather amusingly I have never even told them that this sheet is inadequate due to no prescribed terms, just that it is just illegible. They previously wrote in detail to me explaining that it was all they needed to swing me in front of a judge (I mean - who cares about properly prescribed terms on agreements in threatogram Crudite Land anyway?) My partner is all for taking them to court but ..

 

And this is the T&C sheet they sent much later on...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The OC is HFC/ Beneficial. The Crudites seemed to think that crappy application forms were sufficient to browbeat me into giving them money but I have informed them that they are wrong.

 

The last letter they sent was back in July telling me they would try and get a clearer copy for me (which will be equally worthless as it holds no properly prescribed terms). They also said they welcomed “settlement outside court proceedings” – which really tickled me. One would almost think they had got sick of my responses to their nonsense plus all the official complaints they must have to deal with from me to authorities.

 

Now I feel it is time to bite back.

 

I can just make out on the application that the box for PPI is ticked.

 

However, I do not know how much this is for as they have sent no proper agreement. The amount in question for this account is not massive but the principle is that these bullies need addressing soon before OFT possibly close them down.

 

Now how do I do about claiming this back as chances are it would have been seriously missold at that time back in 02? They want the alleged account so they can pay the PPI .

 

 

Yes – 1st Crudites = 10 out of ten for perseverance - but 0 out of ten for brainpower!

 

 

Gotta luv 'em!

Edited September 11, 2009 by questioner

[dx100uk]

have a read read of the notes for claimant sticky in the ppi forum

 

dx

[questioner]

have a read read of the notes for claimant sticky in the ppi forum

 

dx

 

Thanks - will do

[questioner]

I have several complaints in now about this lot to authorities.

[lilly white]

May I Ask Have You Sar The Oc.

[questioner]

May I Ask Have You Sar The Oc.

 

No, I have nor done that.

 

Ist crud have sent me the same old application form back in response to a CCA request and it is illegible.

 

I was however told on my other threads that the DCA should be the one to tackle for info as the debt now belongs to them.

Edited September 13, 2009 by questioner

[lilly white]

well the point in regards to the sar to the oc is.

 

get all the statments or not

 

as for the ppi payments and a copy of the insurance

 

charges etc.

 

the point being you will see the details re the insurance where they adding interest what was the interest was it stated on the terms.

 

i think you get my drift that would put this in a whole new world

 

poss 142

[questioner]

IMHO to request back PPI might be seen as an acknowledgment of the debt, so I'm not too sure if it would be wise.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mail-order-catalogues/196372-reclaiming-ppi-littlewoods-direct.html

 

That comment concerns me too somewhat .

 

I started this one too, which is relevent on PPI and enforcibility issues.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/218262-cl-finance-questioner.html#post2408373

[lilly white]

yes i know however your are talking to the oc i am not talking about reclaiming anything.

 

what i would like to see how you where charge for the PPI if they have added interest it will be a a different agreedment so the ppi should have its own terms if not they are in very big trouble

[lilly white]

this is what we are talking about The claim

 

 

• I have reasonable rounds for a cause of action against the defendant. The grounds are as follows
   
  a) I believe that the agreement is improperly executed and not compliant with the requirements of section 61(1)(a) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore the claimant would be entitled to seek a declaration from the court pursuant to section 142(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974
   
  b) The loan / Credit card has payment protection insurance which I did not request, disclosure of the agreement will show this as such a policy will be incorporated within the agreement and should be clearly particularised within the agreement as required by section 18 Consumer Credit Act 1974
   
  c) the Defendant has been levying charges which were not set out within the original agreement and therefore are not permitted by the contract
   
  d) .................... ( add any other relevant information)
   
   
  e).......................
  

[lilly white]

this also applys to the others which you have posted

[lilly white]

q.

 

this is a letter sent to a well know dca which sent them into a blind spin.

 

all do it does not help to you however have a read you will get the drift this is what they fear the most/

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

In respect of the credit agreement you have disclosed on the XXXXXXX 2009

 

After seeking legal advice from a Consumer Credit Law specialist i can comment as follows.

 

The agreement you disclosed is improperly executed, it is not compliant primarily with s61(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the consequences are that as it stands the agreement is unenforceable and requires an order of the court pursuant to section 65(1) CCA 1974 to be remedy this problem. you are invited to make such an application for the said order.

 

Upon such an application i will rely upon the following points

 

The agreement is a fixed sum credit agreement, the rate of interest under the agreement is fixed for the term of the loan, there are no items entering into the charge for credit which are likely to be subject to change or variation therefore the agreement requires a term stating the Total Charge for credit with or without a list of its constituent parts, the agreement does not contain this term and therefore breaches Regulation 2 and Schedule 1 Para 9 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983.

 

The agreement must as a consequence of para 9, also include a term stating the total amount payable, again this agreement does not contain such information and therefore the agreement also breaches Reg 2 and Schedule 1 para 11 Consumer Credit Agreement Regulations 1983 and therefore the agreement does not comply with the regulations made by the secretary of state under the powers given by s60(1) of the 1974 Act and accordingly the agreement doesn ot comply with the strict requirements of s61(1)(a) Consumer Credit Act nor did it comply with s61(1) © Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

These breachs are clearly prejudicial to me as on entering into the agreement i was not givne the informatiuon that the Consumer Credit Act required to be made clear, i was not aware of the true cost of borrowing.

 

I would further highlight that Lloyds TSB subscribes to the Banking Code, as a requiremento f the code, they are required to lend responsibly and they clearly have failed in their duty under the code

 

my contention is that the court should not make an enforcement order, my authority for this contention would primarily be the case of Wlaker v SPPL in the Chester High Court before HHJ Derek Halbert. however if the court were minded to make an order for enforcement my argument would fall directly upon Rank Xerox Finance Limited vs Hepple CCLR 1994 1 and in this case the court taking into account a single breach of schedule 1 Agrement Regs reduced the amount of debt from £5000 to £500 to compensate the debtor for the prejudice caused

 

in view of this and in view of the fact you require an order from the court to enforce this agreement as clearly set out within the act, and the House of Lords in Wilson and First County Trust 2003 UKHL 40, i would invite your proposals to settle my dispute. i would also advise that i am informed that , i am able to apply to the court to consider this matter pursuant to section 142(1) CCA 1974 if no suitable agreement can be met.

 

however i trust this will not be necessary

 

I look forward to your settlement proposals

 

[lilly white]

have a read pt puts it so much better

 

Multiple agreements within section 18 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

This is just my view and interpretation of s18 CCA and therefore I would advise anyone reading this bear that in mind

 

Section 18 can be very useful concerning agreements where there is a main loan and payment protection insurance.

 

Firstly lets look at what section 18 says

 

18.Multiple agreements.

 

—(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement ”) if its terms are such as—

 

(a)To place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or

 

(b)To place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned.

 

(2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement.

 

Ok so what does this mean, well, lets say you borrow £6000 from Nasty Banking Corp, the loan is for you to use as you like and therefore you would have fixed sum credit See s10 (1)(B) CCA, unrestricted use credit See s11 (2) CCA and finally it would be a debtor-creditor agreement as defined within s13 CCA

 

Now if you add PPI to the loan, this changes things slightly, why? Well in my view if you borrow £6000 from Nasty Banking Corp and then you add a PPI policy for example adding another £1500 of credit you are turning it into a multiple agreement

 

The PPI is fixed sum credit as set out in section 10 CCA but it is not unrestricted use, instead its restricted use credit ( See s11 CCA) as you do not have any say over its use, it is in effect only credit for the purchase of the PPI policy and additionally it is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement as it would be undoubtedly underwritten by another specialist insurer and not the creditor and therefore it falls within the definition given in section 12 CCA

 

So in effect what we have with the £6000 loan and the £1500 PPI is a multiple agreement with “part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreement so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned”

 

This is because the £6000 is fixed sum, unrestricted use debtor creditor and the £1500 is fixed sum, restricted use Debtor-creditor-supplier

 

Therefore since this type of agreement falls within s18, it means that as defined in s18 (2) CCA that the document is to be treated as 2 separate agreements and each agreement must have its own prescribed terms for each part

 

Therefore each piece of credit must have its own term stating the amount of credit, repayments and all other statutory info, in addition the PPI policy would need to have a term stating the Cash Price of the policy, due to it being a restricted use debtor creditor supplier agreement.

 

In essence there should be the following

 

Loan

 

Amount of Credit £6000

Repayments 60 payments of £XXXXXX

Total amount payable £XXXXXXXX

 

APR 16.9%

 

 

 

PPI

 

Amount of credit £1500

Repayments 60 payments of £XXXXXXX

Total amount payable £ XXXXXXXXX

 

Apr 16.9%

 

Cash price of policy £1500

 

 

the agreement may not be set out exactly as above but that is to give you an idea of what it must contain

 

 

If the agreement fails to correctly set matters out in accordance with s18 then the lender risks falling foul of the form and content requirements of section 60 CCA and could be improperly executed as set out within section 61(1) (a) CCA 1974 thus becoming unenforceable

 

the main thing to remember is that you have two agreement within one document, so there must be a set of prescribed terms for each piece of credit, it is permissible to add the prescribed terms together and then state them as total amounts BUT they must be also stated in their separate parts.

[questioner]

Lilly - all greatly appreciated thanks.

 

I think what you say will apply to the CL one here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/218262-cl-finance-questioner.html#post2408373

 

I must state that I am NOT past the stage of them even complying with a request for legible copies, yet after asking them several times already.

 

I have also noted that the agreement number on the CL agreement is unknown to me and not the same one that appears on all correspondence (could be a pasted up agreement to give the impression of authenticity I feel based on another account that they have not checked the numbers on properly). Therefore, I am waiting to get past this essential post before I will up the anti and hammer them with the s18 issue. They seem to be messing about and ignoring this valid point which I think is good news in itself.

 

Meanwhile - Back to this 1st crud thread and it the very same thing in that all they have ever given me is an illegible application form. Comically we left that one in limbo with them saying they would go ask the OC for a better application form copy (which will be equally as wortheless to the Crudites. lol). They even tried to scare me by saying that a judge would have to decide the case if they could not get a better application copy. That would be fun eh seeing the crudites explain this in court.

 

 

I have this picture forming in my mind due the data I am learning on CAB.

 

It may be wise for me to use the s18 issue as a powerful bargaining chip to push unenforcability issues. I have many agreements that I have paid very little off. Therefore, even if I went into the reclaiming for PPI stance I would probably NOT get that much back. Also seeking PPI does seem to admit a debt, which would not be appropriate if all instances for me, especially if CL have got me linked to the WRONG agreement number!

 

Alternatively, I would be delighted to be able to use s18 to nail the fact that the terms on agreements are NOT properly stated (i e banging 2 loans together as one with all the relevent problems that this creates for lenders) as several posters have kindly pointed out to me.

 

A clean slate wold be grand and to be honest - out of the 13 or so agreements I am fighting over unenforcibility issues, only one company CL have given me anything that may look like an execuited agreement - even though it suffers for the above glitches (wrong agreement number, illegible copies that look like they have been stuck to a tractor's back wheel and of course s18 claptrap etc).

 

I would dearly love to tell CL, BOS, Worst Crud, Barclaycrap, Citi, Apex, etc this but I shall have to be patient wait until they give something easily legible.

 

 

I do however believe in having a battle prepared though - hence my wish to learn all this - just in case I have to attack. Better to be ready to fight rather than waiting for the vultures to peck.

 

The poster shakespeare62 was kind enought to point me in the right direction saying that the terms on my CL agreement were NOT stated correctly due to s18, but that thread has currently gone quiet.

 

If what I am told is genuinly accurate re c18/CL copy then I woud be happy to see the CL thread move into action as it could be very useful to others who have seen similar agreement copies from that lot.

 

Yes - part of me feels like knocking up a general letter offering a mutually - acceptable agreement with many vultures saying -

 

Ok, if you promise to write off this alleged debt, which is in fact unenforcable (due to s18 errors etc anyway), I will not chase you for the PPI that I am advised is missold on this agreement.

 

However - for the moment I will wait and see!

Edited September 14, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

yes i know however your are talking to the oc i am not talking about reclaiming anything.

 

what i would like to see how you where charge for the PPI if they have added interest it will be a a different agreedment so the ppi should have its own terms if not they are in very big trouble

 

 

OK - This is the CL one (CROPPED IN CLOSE) and how they set out the PPI. Although it logs the PPI (called here - retail fanancial service bronze ) it seems to lump everything all together as ONE big loan.

 

 

 

PPI over 84 months may also amount to misselling as I believe insurance premiums only extend to 60 months which means the cover runs out BEFORE the loan is up.

 

I will however be very happy to use this (if we ever get past the vital illegibility issue) to push unenforcibility of the said agreement ... and then there's the matter of the alien agreement number...!

Edited September 15, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

I shall also try out this with TS as I have not used them yet.

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/50-complaint-in-respect-of-dca-threat-re-expired-debt/101-complaint-in-respect-of-invalid-cca-agreement

[questioner]

Just ripped through the statements of HFC (got back to 03) and they have a lot of PPI added.

[questioner]

On my initial post on this thread I banged up the illegible application form that Worst Crud had sent to me.

 

I complained to FOS and this below is their latest offering..

 

Is it me or are they having a go at CAG etc in the last paragraph on the first page?

 

It seems that so long as a shark sends one a battered up scan of 'anything' with your signature on then that good enough for FOS to tell the sharks to keep feeding ..

 

I shall write back but opinions would be nice......

 

 

 

 

I have serious doubts about the FOS (sharks best friend) and I know this has recently been the subject of debate in the press following an FOS whistleblower ratting them out ........

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article6925373.ece

Edited November 30, 2009 by questioner

[citizenB]

Hmmm, this guy is actually commenting within the remit of the FOS.

 

However, he fails to acknowledge that there could also be a dispute on teh amount being claimed by the creditor.

 

Sadly, the FOS are passing the buck.. either you or 1st credit have to make the first move toward a judicial decision for any finality I would have thought.

[questioner]

Or maybe just hang around for nearly six years until it's SB?

 

I can be patient - if I try hard!

[lss017]

I have just like yourself been in conforntation with 1st sent them a letter in there own envelope because they would not acknowledge my subject request all done the correct way.

 

I put on the boxing gloves and sign it will all my qualification from PHD to BA.. For some strange reason they actually wrote back that time. They sent a letter saying that the account would be on hold until all copies of legal documents had been forwarded. In my language Disputed

 

They have sent me lots of statement an application from but no T&C with my signiture. They even sent a copy of the letter from Barcard saying that that they now own the debt and its there responsiblity to deal with it.

 

They have now sent a T&C which is totally illegal can't make out anything it says. With the blessing of Barcard stating that the account was varied and that a current T &C is valied. They further state that a T&C does not need to be signed.

 

Since the account I have with them and its there responsiblity surely since its been in dispute a current T&C 2009 does not apply to an account taken out in 2004 ish might be earlier.... and more to the point I seem to have another company who is chasing the same Barcard account. That is why I want to see what they have to see who I do owe the money too. Any suggestions.

[questioner]

"They even sent a copy of the letter from Barcard saying that that they now own the debt and its there responsiblity to deal with it."

 

So if they 'own' it have you seen any valid DN off BC - before it was terminated? If BC failed on this point you may have to think about raising the issue of unlawful rescission of contract, which would mean the 1st crudites had bought a dodgy account...

 

Just a tiny thought! They like to play about with illegible application forms too pretending that they are enforcable agreements..........

 

Dont forget to utilise this too

 

BBC News - Lenders warned not to mislead customers over debts

 

And remind the crudites about the stipulations placed on them by OFT last spring - i.e. be nice or we fine you are take away your trading licence.

 

They are appalling I know but easy to manage when you realise that have nothing! Basically they are very silly but pushy.

 

Do make CERTAIN you report them to OFT especially.

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on 1st Credit over debt collection practices

 

 

"That is why I want to see what they have to see who I do owe the money too."

 

 

Unless they can produce an enforcable agreement holding all prescribed terms etc - you owe nothing!

Edited December 5, 2009 by questioner

[questioner]

Bit of a turn up here

 

I hit the OC with a PPI claim and they agreed to pay up so long as I promised not to take any action against them.

they also said that if there is an outstanding balance this goodwill payment would be credited against the amount owed. No way is that acceptable.

 

Their shark - worst credit boo hiss , never gave me anything but an crappy app form over my CCA request .

 

Advice appreciated........

[lilly white]

is this a loan or credit card

[questioner]

credit card