Paying A Loan Agrement On A Credit Card, Which Is Incorrectly Executed....

[emanevs]

HAHAHAHA. No, I didn't ask for it to be moved. But I DO think its new home is somewhat appropriate. Unfortunately, you credit me with far more powers than I actually possess, and I'm afraid I have upset too many who DO have power, for me to have any influence on what goes on here.

 

I suspect that someone on the site team finds your theory hilarious.

 

OK, I'll bite... point me in the direction of Martin Lewis's Marvellous Nuggets of Wisdom where he says this is a sensible thing to do. I'd love to tell him he's talking shoite.

 

:lol::lol: ;-)

 

HERE IS ALL THE HARD WORK DONE FOR YOU!!!!

 

Section 75 refunds: Free protection for ALL spending...

[Fester Tester]

I'll simply quote from his page (and I'm very upset that I cannot fault him after all)...

 

A. While the bulk of claims are made to credit card providers, the law also applies to other types of credit agreement (except where the supplier is also the creditor, eg for some car finance).

 

And in any case, the provision of credit is NOT the same as supplying you with goods.

 

I trust this clarifies things.

[emanevs]

have you seen the OFT leaflet 303??

 

I didnt pay using a welcsum credit card so your point is wrong.

 

supplier of credit - the ****

credit grantor - credit card (who pays the **** with a cash payment to the supplier of credit)

debtor - emanevs

 

ITS THE MISREPRESENTION OR BREACH OF CONTRACT THAT IS IMPORTANT.

 

EQUAL LIABILITY UNDER S75 OF CCA 194.

[emanevs]

The Post Has Moved Back!!!!!!!!

[Fester Tester]

In which case, your assumptions are even funnier.

 

I do see what you are trying to say here, but the truth is, the scanario you imagine is a little different in reality. You have NOT used your card to buy anything. You have simply used it to part repay an existing loan.

 

I'm sorry, but I am a very simple person who needs everything spelt out in plain English. So unless you quote the exact part of ML's blurb, I just cannot see that he is backing you up here.

[emanevs]

OK, fair enough.

 

I know its a long shot, but to be honest I can see some merit in it.

 

Its no different to this:

 

1) Welcome 'supply' me with credit

2) my credit card pays the loan amount of £400 quid

3) the supply of credit was misdescribed by the fact that the interest rates are incorrect.

4) welscum and my credit card are jointly liable for the misdescripton or breach of contract on the supply of fautly credit.

5) I reclaim all of my 'losses' - thousdands of it!

 

hope that makes a bit of sense.

[Fester Tester]

No, no, no and no.

 

NO... you have not bought anything from Welcome. And you cannot argue that you used the loan to buy anything either, since that would make Welcome, technically, a third party and so S75 does not apply.

 

NO... A loan is NOT goods. (And do beware the dangers inherent in assuming your interest has been incorrectly calculated, as it's not usually the case that YOU will have calculated anything accurately.)

 

NO... you cannot argue faulty credit. Ignore for the moment that a loan is not "goods", then how is the credit "faulty"? Have you been prejudiced by them giving you money? Did they bung you a handful of forged tenners? No? Thought not.

 

No you don't. You've even got THAT wrong. Only if you have completely paid for the "goods", albeit only part of it with a credit card, would you have been entitled to that full amount to be refunded. I repeat... You have NOT bought anything, or been supplied with goods.

 

I really can't make it any plainer. If you can't grasp it from the above, I'll never convince you. And so I can only say, I'm dying to see what the response will be to your LBA from your credit card company. Now THAT will be worth a bit more than a giggle in The Bear Garden.

[emanevs]

No, no, no and no.

 

NO... you have not bought anything from Welcome. And you cannot argue that you used the loan to buy anything either, since that would make Welcome, technically, a third party and so S75 does not apply.

 

TRUE - I DID NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM WELCOME. HOWEVER, IF YOU BOUGHT A FAULTY TV FROM A*GOS, A*GOS WOULDNT MAKE THE TV EITHER SO YOUR ARGUMENT HERE FALLS FLAT.

 

YOU ALSO HAVE MISSED THIS OFF OUR FRIEND 'MARTIN'

 

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

 

 

NO... A loan is NOT goods. (And do beware the dangers inherent in assuming your interest has been incorrectly calculated, as it's not usually the case that YOU will have calculated anything accurately.)

 

TRUE - A LOAN IS NOT GOODS. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME WHAY A CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT IS REGULATED BY THE CCA 1974, A LOAN IS COVERED BY THE ACT - BUT IT HAS TO BE REGULATED - OF WHICH THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS.

 

NO... you cannot argue faulty credit. Ignore for the moment that a loan is not "goods", then how is the credit "faulty"? Have you been prejudiced by them giving you money? Did they bung you a handful of forged tenners? No? Thought not.

 

THE CREDIT AGREEMENT WAS FAULTY - FACT. IT MISLEAD US IN THINKING THE LOAN WOULD COMPLETE IN XXXX YEARS, BUT ACTUALLY IT WILL NOT. IT WILL TAKE YYYY YEARS. IN ADDITION, THE LOAN AGREEMENT MISDESCRIBED HOW INTEREST WOULD BE CALCULATED.

 

THE IMPORTANT PART IS THE MISDESCRIBING....

 

....AND I HAVENT EVEN STARTED ON THE AGREEMENT BEING IMPROPERLY EXECUTED........

 

No you don't. You've even got THAT wrong. Only if you have completely paid for the "goods", albeit only part of it with a credit card, would you have been entitled to that full amount to be refunded. I repeat... You have NOT bought anything, or been supplied with goods.

 

NO, NO, NO - SEE MARTIN LEWIS LINK I UPLOADED, AND ONCE AGAIN READ IT.

 

FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOVE IS THAT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A FULL REFUND ON CREDIT CARD PURCHASES TO THE FULL AMOUNT.

 

THERE ARE MANY, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE RECLAIMED THE WHOLE AMOUNT

 

 

AGAIN, MY FRIEND YOU ARE REALLY INCORRECT....

 

I really can't make it any plainer. If you can't grasp it from the above, I'll never convince you. And so I can only say, I'm dying to see what the response will be to your LBA from your credit card company. Now THAT will be worth a bit more than a giggle in The Bear Garden.

 

I CANNOT MAKE IT ANY PLAINER EITHER....

 

LETS KEEP THIS CIVILISED, AND CONSIDER MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

 

I DONT REALLY SEE THE NEED FOR SARCASM ON THIS, AS WE ARE ALL TRYING TO HELP.

 

AS I SAID BEFORE, MANY "SENIOR" CAGGERS HAVE ALL TOUTED AGREEMENTS UNENFORCEABLE (INCLUDING MINE) AND ALL I HAVE HAD FROM YOU IS BORDERLINE INSULTS.

 

C'MON, GROW UP A BIT AND ENJOY THE DISCUSSION.........

 

YOU WOULD BE NO GOOD IN A LIVE TV DEBATE!!!!

:lol::lol:

 

PS. PERHAPS YOU WORK FOR WELCOME? :lol:

[TheCherry0121]

I see your point question will be will the card supplier court and creditor??? There are loopholes everywher and one word can make or break certain rules and regs but you never know

[emanevs]

thanks thecherrry....

 

its just my opinion above, and should not be taken as red.

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

I believe the operative words above are "GET BACK", as in it was his money he had a right to it back.

There was a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship for goods!

 

 

Debtor-himself

Creditor-Barclaycard

Supplier-Car dealership

Goods-THE CAR

 

He paid IN FULL for the car but never received it because there was a problem with the supplier, but because some of it was paid on his credit card, (regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974), he was entitled to get all of HIS money back under section 75.

 

And I definitely DON'T work for welcome or any other thieving barstewards, I just don't want to see anybody get further in to debt by paying their loans on their credit cards in the hope they can get loads of money.

 

If you have that many issues with welcome's agreement, take them to court!

[emanevs]

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

 

I believe the operative words above are "GET BACK", as in it was his money he had a right to it back.

 

There was a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship for goods!

 

 

Debtor-himself

Creditor-Barclaycard

Supplier-Car dealership

Goods-THE CAR

 

He paid IN FULL for the car but never received it because there was a problem with the supplier, but because some of it was paid on his credit card, (regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974), he was entitled to get all of HIS money back under section 75.

 

And I definitely DON'T work for welcome or any other thieving barstewards, I just don't want to see anybody get further in to debt by paying their loans on their credit cards in the hope they can get loads of money.

 

THEY WONT UNLESS THEY HAVE A VALID REASON TO CLAIM......

 

If you have that many issues with welcome's agreement, take them to court! I HAVE!!!!

ABOVE

[emanevs]

You Have All Forgotten About The Misdescribing.......

[emanevs]

And We Have The "senior Caggers" To Thank For All Telling Us That Our Loan Agreements Are Unenforceable....

 

Where Are They All Now???

[wannabedebtfreesoon]

Ok have it your way, good luck.

 

Your post quoted below though, I find very unsettling. Prove it yourself first and then tell others to follow or you could be getting a lot of vulnerable people in to a lot of hot water. Do you really want that on your conscience??

 

And if you havent made a credit card payment yet on a misdescribed loan

 

MAKE ONE!!!!!

 

ha,ha,

[emanevs]

it was only a joke....

 

point taken.....

 

but this is a discussion forum and not the CAB and we are all not legally trained.....

[Fester Tester]

You are actualy answering and making my point Emanevs. The key word is PURCHASED!!!

 

You do NOT purchase a loan. You received no goods, ergo there was nothing to misdescribe, go faulty, not be delivered, or whatever.

 

What you are after is FREE MONEY. And as always, the greedy can't see beyond what they want to see.

 

The way I see it is this: not only do you want to have your agreement declared unenforcable, but you also want to double your money.

 

I've had enough. The time for sarcasm has gone... now it's time for plain speaking.

 

IF YOU CAN'T SPOT THE OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THIS ARGUMENT, YOU HAVE THE IQ OF A ROCKING HORSE.

[car2403]

As for the misdescribing, there are tolerances within APR allowances, so unless you have additional information you want to share, that's a none starter also.

 

Yes, if an interest rate is misstated, the agreement may be unenforceable. But then, I may win the Lotto at the weekend also.

[beyondhope]

And We Have The "senior Caggers" To Thank For All Telling Us That Our Loan Agreements Are Unenforceable....

 

Where Are They All Now???

 

 

Dont start me on that one!

[citizenB]

This thread has been returned to the BEAR GARDEN.

 

This has to be a spoof, no one could seriously consider that they could take out a loan, pay it off with a credit card and then because they believe the agreement to be incorrectly executed.. use the provision under the credit card terms and conditions to hold the Credit Card supplier jointly responsible for the return of monies paid.

[Fester Tester]

He/she doesn't just want monies paid to be returned CB. He/she is after the full amount of the loan.

 

Double bubble.

[BEBOBEBO]

Dont start me on that one!

 

Nor me!!!, Famous last words "I'll do you a Letter" :lol:

[emanevs]

As for the misdescribing, there are tolerances within APR allowances, so unless you have additional information you want to share, that's a none starter also.

 

Yes, if an interest rate is misstated, the agreement may be unenforceable. But then, I may win the Lotto at the weekend also.

 

have a look on legal tools

EDIT

Edited August 2, 2010 by MARTIN3030
No proof of permissions to post these links.

[emanevs]

He/she doesn't just want monies paid to be returned CB. He/she is after the full amount of the loan.

 

Double bubble.

 

"it" is looking for a repayment of the monies paid.

 

no double bubbles - would be nice tho!

 

AND IN ANY EVENT:

 

WHATS THE DIFFERENCE OF THIS AND A DOGEY TV......?

 

AND OUR FRIEND MARTIN L*WIS!!!!

 

:lol:

PS. WHY IS THIS BACK IN THE BEAR GARDEN????

[car2403]

have a look on legal tools

 

 

 

And that means...

 

PS. WHY IS THIS BACK IN THE BEAR GARDEN????

 

Sorry, friend, it's in the BG because I have admin tools and you don't. Of course, if you disagree with this, you can complain to Admin (admin @ consumeractiongroup.co.uk) who will review 'my' decision for you, but I suspect it will remain here until you either answer questions posed about the situation you seemingly believe we all understand, but clearly don't, or state the reasoning that you believe what you are saying is right and true, in the legal sense. Without any of that, this thread is dangerous to those reading it and belongs in the BG.

Edited August 2, 2010 by MARTIN3030