Unenforceable Agreement Case Details

[un1boy]

zoot, i'm confused - can the debt still be unenforceable of they don't supply the default notice for closed accounts?

 

What's the differnence/requirements of s77/78?

[BaldyBaldwin]

i am trying to find out more about the to insurance policies that were unknowingly to me added on to the loan amounts when i took out the loans, and which i only found out about after a dpa request, my line of thinking was that if they could not supply the agreements it would it would strenghen my claim that the policies were miss sold. any thoughts as to wich direction i could head to find out more about this.

thanks for the earlier info

[zootscoot]

What's the differnence/requirements of s77/78?

 

S.77 applies to credit of fixed amounts eg a loan and gives the debtor the right to request a copy of the original signed agreement

 

S.78 provides the same rights in relation to running credit agreements eg credit card, catalogues

 

can the debt still be unenforceable of they don't supply the default notice for closed accounts?

 

s.87 requires the creditor to supply a default notice 7 days before taking any action on the default such as calling the whole debt in, terminating the agreement or calling in any security. Failure to supply a default notice prevents the creditor from taing any of these actions it does not render the debt unenforceable.

 

i am trying to find out more about the to insurance policies that were unknowingly to me added on to the loan amounts when i took out the loans, and which i only found out about after a Data Protection Act request, my line of thinking was that if they could not supply the agreements it would it would strenghen my claim that the policies were miss sold. any thoughts as to wich direction i could head to find out more about this.

thanks for the earlier info

 

Not entirely sure with this one ...perhaps a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) on the insurance company? There is a chance that they will still send the documents following your CCA request.

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

[deemacperth]

Zoot, Are you saying section 77 and 78 of the CCA don't apply to closed accounts? I.e a credit card closed and the debt passed to a DCA.

 

I'm unable to get a true copy of the agreement?

[zootscoot]

Hi Deemacperth,

 

The CCA Part VI only applies during the currency of accounts which includes s.77 & 78.

 

http://www.passprotect.studio400.me.uk/Consumer_Credit_Act_1974.PDF

 

 

I saw your earlier thread and tried to find the answer but I'm not sure. It may well be that because the debt is sold the account is still treated as being current. I'm not sure if there is any legislation which governs the sale of debts, I'm sure there must be, but I can't seem to find anything on it. I know Baconbuttyman got a similar letter to yours and he ended up successful

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/10900-loan-company-cannot-supply.html

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

[callumsgran]

Does anyone know if you can get the charge for ppi back if you default on the loan? after all you are not going to be able to claim on it so surely its obsolete?

Are you entitled to anything back?

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi all!

 

Cillitbanger in reply to your post:

 

1.Yes you can.I recently succeeded in getting both PPI premiums plus contractual interest refunded on 2 loans and backdated from the commencement date of each loan.

 

2.I had defaulted on both loans and the company that purchased the loans took me to court so I counterclaimed,please read my post within the Insurance/Assurance Section of this forum - Title Good News Folks!

 

 

If you have any more questions just ask.

 

Keep us posted.

 

All the best!

[Peterbard]

After issuing a claim for charges the bank sent me this reply:

 

The letter was dated 28th September and the relavant part read; "You have failed to provide rellavant details of the account or details of the charges you allege we owe."

 

"Should you fail to provide such details we will apply to the court to have your claim struck out pursuant to CCR part 3.4 (2) © and that you may be ordered to pay our costs, etc."

 

My details were posted seperate to the money claim and registered so no problem there, but it started me thinking and I had a look at the Civil Procedure Rules they mentioned. I have copied the relevant sections here.

 

I have highlighted the sections of interest and wonder if these could be applied to some of the ludicrous defences including the infamous cloaking defence outlined elswhere in this forum.

 

1.1 Rule 1.4(2)© includes as an example of active case management the summary disposal of issues which do not need full investigation at trial.

1.2 The rules give the court two distinct powers which may be used to achieve this. Rule 3.4 enables the court to strike out the whole or part of a statement of case which discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending a claim (rule 3.4(2)(a)), or which is an abuse of the process of the court or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings (rule 3.4(2)(b)) Rule 24.2 enables the court to give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant where that party has no real prospect of succeeding on his claim or defence. Both these powers may be exercised on an application by a party or on the court’s own initiative.

1.3 This practice direction sets out the procedure a party should follow if he wishes to make an application for an order under rule 3.4.

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):

(1)Those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,

(2)Those which are incoherent and make no sense,

(3)Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.

The complete document can be found at:

PRACTICE DIRECTION – STRIKING OUT A STATEMENT OF CASE - This Practice Direction supplements CPR Rule 3.4

 

Also could the fact that although various defences have been filed on Bank Charge Refund actions none of them have been followed up in court(to my knowledge) show that these defences were nothing but a delaying tactic and a flagrant waste of Court time and contrary to the above Rules.

 

It would be very sweet indeed if we could use the banks own delaying tactics to get their defence/counterclaim thrown out.

 

Peter

[Mike220359]

Nikkiandthemidgets,

 

yes you can get your money back on a closed acoount. I took a loan out with the Co-op but was told that they would only lend it me if I took out PPI, I eventually paid this off with another loan, since i tried to claim on the insurance but was told i had a predisposing condition. I exhausted the Co-ops internal procedure and then went to the Ombudsman, six weeks later I got all my money back plus interest plus £250 compensation.

 

Mike

[nikkiandmidgets]

hi Mike220359 - If you can send me any info\advice for wording letters and contact details for Ombudsman would be greatly appreciated. Either pm or reply please! Want to chase up Associates\Citi and Macadam (now Welcome I believe). One query though will it make a difference that I signed for loans in their offices?

[qprouk]

Hi all!

 

From what I understand and conclude here:

 

The loan MUST be regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 i.e.

 

1.either an unsecured loan upto to £25,000 - based on current limits.

 

or

 

2.A secured loan upto to £25,000 - based on current limits.

 

The difference between regulated and unregulated is that there IS a cooling off period - to mainly to protect consumers from pushy salespeople.It is a very serious matter for the lending company/broker that is placing the finance to contact the consumer during the cooling off period - I think it is 16 days(2 weeks plus 1 day each way for 1st class post) but not visa versa.

 

Regarding this specific case,the regulated loan threshold was £10,000 at the time.

 

3.Another issue is that the type of loan i.e. non-status,adverse,clean credit etc is of no bearing.It is how the agreement is drafted that counts.

 

4.In comparision to the other case that was allowed in favour of the lending company was it seems mainly because the arrears seemed very modest.Thus there was no exploitation of the consumer.I have yet to conclude any further distinctive differences.I will read through the cases again.There maybe be more to come!

 

 

5.Finally to add on further,a mortgage say for £50,000 would not be covered under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.However,this may not necessarily mean it would be enforceable if say arrears letters charges etc were added on.My guess would be that it would come under the Unfair Terms Legislation.Personally,I think any unlawful charges i.e.arrears letters,"iffy Payment Protection Plan amount" would be added up and removed from the balance owed plus any interest that may have been charged then the amount owed would be calculated again in order to reach to the correct figure.Could be complicated if it streched over a few years but seems to be the correct method to obtain accurate figures.

 

Anyway,another interesting thing for us all to investigate more!

 

At the moment,this is my further 2p's worth!

i had a loan from halifax for 25,000 and with PPI ,i can honestley say they had absolutely no quibbles in paying my loan(PPI)and they are still paying it only 2 more years ,i can honestly say as well they could not do enough to help , but the secret was keep talking to them but again we have never been troublesome to them over twenty years...

[Nightmare4banks]

qprouk in reply to your post:

 

 

I do not understand the logic behind your post.Are you inferring that I am

a troublemaker?

 

If you had your Payment Protection pay up for you,good on you.You are one of the few and I am really pleased for you.

 

In my case,it did not paid out.This is like tons of other people in this country.

 

These are not my figures but according to the Citizens Advice Bureau around 85% of claims are not honoured plus loans become extremely expensive with no real benefit for consumers.

 

Recently,The Payment Protection Fiasco has been referred to the Monopolies Commission for further investigation by the OFT etc.

 

Accordingly this is why I have posted this for the benefit of those folks on this forum.

 

So who are the troublemakers here other disadvantaged consumers and myself or the rip off - putting it politely loan and insurance companies?

[qprouk]

i do apoligise for the tone of my last reply it was,nt meant the way i put it,but halifax could nt have treated us better and the help was unbeleivable i did not mean to or infer anything but just to say with the relaitionship we have with the halifax it was really good,yet on the other hand we have got simmallar problems with the other ppi like morgan stanley and nat west who have given me no end of hastle and i am still trying to get them to the courts deeply apoligise if i have upset you sorry mate

[Nightmare4banks]

qprouk,

 

Your apology is accepted.

 

Also just to mention that I never get upset.I get even!

 

Anyway,I am not surprised about your problems with your card claims in any shape or form.

 

These companies have nothing better to do than rip off the public and keep their shareholders and fat cats happy.

 

However,the tide is turning albeit slowly in favour of consumers.

 

Anyway,that is my rant for now!

[breadline]

Nikkiandthemidgets,

 

yes you can get your money back on a closed acoount. I took a loan out with the Co-op but was told that they would only lend it me if I took out PPI, I eventually paid this off with another loan, since i tried to claim on the insurance but was told i had a predisposing condition. I exhausted the Co-ops internal procedure and then went to the Ombudsman, six weeks later I got all my money back plus interest plus £250 compensation.

 

Mike

 

Mike have you got dates of theses loans?

It is belived that closed loans do not count, although i am concidering the battle, as the loan that is owing me, was paid off with another loan from the same bank and this loan is still running, i am hoping that the action of the link between teh loans and teh banks paying off a loan tha they knew was incorrcet may go in my favour.

[callumsgran]

Hi all!

 

Cillitbanger in reply to your post:

 

1.Yes you can.I recently succeeded in getting both PPI premiums plus contractual interest refunded on 2 loans and backdated from the commencement date of each loan.

 

2.I had defaulted on both loans and the company that purchased the loans took me to court so I counterclaimed,please read my post within the Insurance/Assurance Section of this forum - Title Good News Folks!

 

 

If you have any more questions just ask.

 

Keep us posted.

 

All the best!

 

N4B, yet again you have made my day!!!

Thank you so much:D :D

[fergal71]

subscribing great thread.... if we get stronger do you think we could ask for weekly pay back.... he he ... I am certain there where less problems back then???

 

this is getting bigger and is already hitting the far east and america.... when will the law change and the fat cats start their diets?????