Is this unenforceable under Section 18?

[xionuk]

I've been reading the forums and I'm still not 100% sure if the agreement is enforceable or not. The loan contains a £2000 cash advance and also has a few of their insurance polices on it (PPI wasn't mandatory), so my understanding is that each insurance policy (or all of them bundled) and the loan agreement should be treated separately and therefore have the number of payments, interest rate, frequency, etc.. listed for both the loan and insurances?

 

I've uploaded a copy of the agreement blurring out my personal details, any help that can be given will be appreciated.

 

Weblinks

Loan Agreement Side 1: - cl.ly/c56baebc3fcf60fc031c

Loan Agreement Side 2: - cl.ly/fcc34fe8dc2005890ba0

[rebel11]

Hi xion

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will respond shortly. Have you been Mis-sold PPI that you can claim back?

[xionuk]

Hi xion

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will respond shortly. Have you been Mis-sold PPI that you can claim back?

 

No, the PPI wasn't mis-sold. It was all explained and has the second signature box as can be seen in the first cl.ly link.

 

I actually had to use the PPI too which is the reason for them now passing it onto a DCA. I took ill with CFS/ME back in January 2009 which activated the PPI as I wasn't working and the PPI lasted the year then finished leaving me with £2002.82 still outstanding on the loan agreement.

 

I'm perfectly happy to repay it when and if I get well enough to return to work, but if it's unenforceable it will be nice to tell them to p**s off so I can have a little breathing room without worrying about all of this.

[xionuk]

Is anyone able to shed any light on this at all for me?

[lord_tiger_putin]

Is anyone able to shed any light on this at all for me?

 

I can do a similar breakdown for you later when I got the time:

http://s928.photobucket.com/albums/ad125/lord_tiger_putin/?action=view&current=Welcome.png

 

Will see whether they got their APR correct this time!!

 

The agreement should have "Total amount payable".

 

It is a pre April 2007 agrement, which is good! This is therefore NOT relevant!!

 

"Section 127(3) of the Act has been repealed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, therefore agreements entered into on or after 6 April 2007 cannot be held to be 'irredeemably unenforceable'."

 

[xionuk]

That would be fantastic if you could.

 

The agreement doesn't have "Total amount payable", just Total Amount of Credit and Total Charge for Credit, but nowhere are they added together.

[lord_tiger_putin]

Is the Interest Rate 55.55% and the APR 58.51%? it is a bit difficult to make out.

[xionuk]

Yup, that's what's on every page I've got. I can't make heads nor tales of it either.

[lord_tiger_putin]

Yup, that's what's on every page I've got. I can't make heads nor tales of it either.

 

Well, ... I do not what to say, I made calculations based on that and it seems 55.55% on £3243.29 over 3 years (36 months) ain't £2857.63!! Correct me if I am wrong!

The real interest rate should be 29.37% and therefore their agreement is way out!! I can only assume they entered the wrong percentage, do calculate the interest and see whether you agree. Anyway, here is the assessment based on that:

[xionuk]

So, the credit agreement is unenforceable then because of the four breaches listed below then regardless of whether section 18 comes into play or not then?

[lord_tiger_putin]

So, the credit agreement is unenforceable then because of the four breaches listed below then regardless of whether section 18 comes into play or not then?

 

This agreement will be un-enforceable for more than one reason. One reason is the missing Total Amount Payable. All the breaches above could be a result of a wrong interest rate but that will make the APR wrong as well (more correctly, difficult to determine!).

 

Here is a thread explaining what the wrong APR and missing Total Amount Payable means, something to be used in an argument.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?240088-Urgent-Welcome-Finance-Trouble

 

BUTin your case (pre April 2007), one item wrong and it is un-enforceable. The April 2007 issue is the fact that they removed section 127.

 

There is case law to help with the fact that one item missing = un-enforceable.

 

I am a unsure what you mean by section 18, can you elaborate?

[xionuk]

This thread is section 18, about multiple agreements - loan and ppi.

consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?171037

 

Basically because PPI and the loan are in there, the information should have been laid out once for the loan and once for the PPI which is wasn't. But the above breaches are good too, enough for me to tell them to **** off and give me some breathing room.

[lord_tiger_putin]

This thread is section 18, about multiple agreements - loan and ppi.

consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?171037

 

Basically because PPI and the loan are in there, the information should have been laid out once for the loan and once for the PPI which is wasn't. But the above breaches are good too, enough for me to tell them to **** off and give me some breathing room.

 

OK. got it now, its about multiple agreements. It is difficult one but I do believe they have to separate the payment amounts, terms , etc. I do have such an agreement where it is one document but they separate these terms correctly (HSBC loan and I believe that one is enforceable) by this one fails on that as well. That is my interpretation.

 

I have read a number of threats about Welcome and I believe the general feeling is that their agreements is useless.

 

I do believe you can tell them to do something else with themselves.