chez's HP agreement problems

[citizenB]

The first agreement - Page 1 clearly states it is covered by the CCA1974.

 

Page 2 - states that the goods do NOT become your property.

 

The type face is too tiny for me to read but I thought I saw mention of the Unfair Terms and Contracts.. 12 and 13 ? And also reference to SOGA.

[chez262]

I have attached a clearer view of the terms and conditions.

 

I'm not sure how it will affect my case if it does make comment to Unfair Terms and Contracts or SOGA, my apologies.

 

Thanks.

Admiral T&C.pdf

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

OK that makes everything clear now. Just read clause 10. The principal agreement is unregulated, and they have used a combined form of agreement to cater for all their business, both regulated and unregulated. How your solicitor has not picked that up, and even more so why their solicitor hasn't is baffling. If the principal agreement is not regulated then neither is the guarantee, so all parts of your defence relating to the CCA are bad.

 

The reference to the Unfair Contract Terms Act is an exclusion clause. They are attempting to exclude liability for defective goods, but UCTA prohibits that in a consumer contract. This isn't a consumer contract though, it is a business contract so the exclusion clause is not prohibited. Not that it's particularly relevant in your case.

[chez262]

Yes it is clause 10 which I was later shown by my solicitor. It is also he who informed me the guarantors had not signed any agreement with this clause in it therefore contract 2 is regulated?

I'm totally bamboozled with all this.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

This gets worse. The guarantee is not another hire agreement. It is merely an agreement by which the guarantors agree to indemnify Admiral against any losses arising out of a breach of the main agreement. You just can't have such a thing as a regulated guarantee of an unregulated agreement. The issues are actually pretty straightforward, but I can see why you have become confused given some of the (wrong) information you have been provided (and paid for!). It also doesn't help that Admiral have treated the agreement as though it were regulated when it clearly isn't. If I were you I would ask your solicitor to refer the file either to someone more senior or to a barrister because I think you need a second opinion from someone who knows their way round the Consumer Credit Act.

[chez262]

I just can't afford to pay them anymore... I'm starting to feel like they are robbing me as much as the claimants!

They haven't got a clue and never give me a straight answer. They are more renowned for defending the claimants in these situations so in all honesty I don't think they really want to defend me but they were the only firm I knew who were actually willing to get involved with the CCA legislation.

They charge 200 an hour for what you yourself claim to be 'wrong' information so far!!

I'm not going through this to try and capture them out in the CCA loop hole mistakes sometimes made by creditors. I just really feel like I've been conned into something which not only did I think was a finance agreement but there now appears to be no benefits to me as there are to the claimants and I'm actually only renting equipment! How can a court of law see this as justice? Rant over, apologies