Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Is this EGG Laon agreement compliant with CCA74?


Big Naughty
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4835 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thanks for taking the time to look at my post.

 

I have had a number of threatening letters about this Loan Agreement from all the usual DCA's, the latest of which is from Fredrickson International Limited demanding immediate payment, home visits, etc etc!

 

Well due to my unfortunate circumstances, no job, no money as some of you will know from my other posts I have no way of paying the outstanding ballance anytime soon! I would if I could. But I can't!

 

I have sent a number of letters to EGG about the account and what my options are, including CCA and SAR and all the other templates people have kindly sent me.

 

I sent EGG a CCA on 22nd January this year, then I followed on with a SAR when nothing came back from them.

 

I have attached what EGG have now sent me as their SAR response this month.

 

Can anyone say if it is a compliant agreement with CCA74 please as I have read many of them aren't. Should I be worried for now?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

BN

EGG Loan Page 1.pdf

EGG Loan Page 2.pdf

Edited by Big Naughty
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have now had a letter from the DCA (Frederickson International) this week offering me a final settlement, as long as I call them straight away of course, or they will suggest that their client proceeds with court action!

 

Should I be worried?

 

BN

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi there.

Have you reclaimed the PPI?

Looking at this you are talking a very large of sum of money.

 

In my opinion its unenforceable anyway as there is nothing to link the 2 pages but i'm really no expert on this, a real layman.

 

Personally I would not be too worried yet, in the right place.

 

I recommend you post a link to this thread on the dca forum for some expert advice on where to go from here. :)

 

Debt Collection Industry - The Consumer Forums

Edited by Craigbadger
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The agreement looks fine to me. The link to the second page is not a problem, following Carey v HSBC those two are clearly part of the same document. The front page has the necessary prescribed terms (in this case the Amount of Credit and the repayment obligations.

2. claiming PPI missale would not effect an allegation that the agreement was unenforceable.

 

Egg are extremely sensitive about PPI mis-selling and may well roll over as soon as you write to them about it, however they are likely to use the refund to reduce the debt, rather than actually giving you any money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think there is nothing to link the 2 pages but as I say take my word as my opinion.

 

I guess theres the matter of whether its 1 page or a print off etc.

 

And the question as to why they sent nothing to your cca request.

 

But op as ECPR has said get on the PPI for now. :)

Edited by Craigbadger
Link to post
Share on other sites

reclaim the ppi they can only take arrears not the whole balance from any reclaim/

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
1. The agreement looks fine to me. The link to the second page is not a problem, following Carey v HSBC those two are clearly part of the same document. The front page has the necessary prescribed terms (in this case the Amount of Credit and the repayment obligations.

2. claiming PPI missale would not effect an allegation that the agreement was unenforceable.

 

Egg are extremely sensitive about PPI mis-selling and may well roll over as soon as you write to them about it, however they are likely to use the refund to reduce the debt, rather than actually giving you any money.

 

Hi All

 

I have a very similar agreement but without the PPI but you mention that the prescribed terms are there (amount of credit and repayment obligation) but I don't see the amount of credit anywhere, nor is there on mine, so wouldn't that make the agreement unenforceable on that basis?

 

Tonster

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Total Amount" is really what the CCA calls the "Amount of Credit". The Regs don't say it has to be called "Amount of Credit".

 

I'm not sure it does. The total amount in this case is the total loan added to the PPI, nowhere does it show what the charge for credit is anywhere and that should be on the agreement and it isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it does. The total amount in this case is the total loan added to the PPI, nowhere does it show what the charge for credit is anywhere and that should be on the agreement and it isn't.

 

 

In fact if you look again at the agreement the total amount you mention '£30428.50' is excluding any interest/credit and if you look at the repayments 60*612.11 = 36726.60 which is obviously the full amount repayable. This charge for credit should be stated and it isn't which makes this agreement unenforceable because it lacks the prescribed terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Total Charge for Credit is not prescribed. It is required by Schedule 1, paragraph 9/10 (depending on type of agreement) of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. Only Schedule 6 are prescribed terms.

 

Failing to include a required term makes the agreement enforceable only at the order of the court, not irredeemably unenforceable by section 127(3).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have virtually the same wording on my agreement - received today.

 

Does anyone have a link to an appropriate template letter to respond to Egg (or in my case Credit Solutions DCA)?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Total Charge for Credit is not prescribed. It is required by Schedule 1, paragraph 9/10 (depending on type of agreement) of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. Only Schedule 6 are prescribed terms.

 

Failing to include a required term makes the agreement enforceable only at the order of the court, not irredeemably unenforceable by section 127(3).

 

From what I have read on this site and in the following sticky link a term stating the amount of credit for a fixed Sum Credit Agreement (loan as in this case) is prescribed in paragraph 2 of schedule 6 and so is protected by section 127(3) or am I being completely thick?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct Tonster, EGG don't do enforceable agreements.

 

The agreement the OP posted up is not enforceable, send them the 'failed' letter.

Edited by Bazooka Boo

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for not responding sooner. I dont have my own computer anymore so I have to beg and borrow to get online.

 

Are you now saying the document I posted at the start is not enforceable, or is enforceable? Sorry for asking a dumb question!

 

BN

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mozz1 - I will try to do a monthly progress now I can get on line more often. The good news is that I am earning again so I am paying the ones that have agreements. I have had one court date for CCJ but I manged to pay the solicitor so avoided that.

 

I know its wrong but that has become my strategy now:

 

1 - CCA

2 - SAR

3 - Letters to stop phone harrassment and door stop collections

4 - Wait for solicitors letter with court date thenpay

 

OR

 

5 - Go for statute barred after 6 years.

 

I dont even think that if I was lucky enough to buy a winning lottery ticket that I would pay the ones that dont have agreements!

 

I do have some other posts on hear as well. Interesting ones about Amex!

 

Let me know if yu want the links?

 

BN

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there - yes I have had lots of Without Predudice letters and F&F offers for Egg and others. Even if I beleived the DCAs which I dont, I dont have the money to pay them anyway!

 

Would you/anyone know where I can find the Failed Letter.I think I have a template already but I want to check if its the same thing.

 

BN

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...