Cap1 & CCA return

[car2403]

Would I be right in thinking then that the "if any"would apply to overdrafts?

 

Blodwyn:D

 

This has already been decided, hasn't it?

 

Below is an extract from

 

http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/5883.DOC

 

1.1 What is covered by the s74 determination?

 

A determination under s74(3) was made by the OFT with effect from 1 February 1990. It applies to d-c agreements enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a ‘bank’ as defined in the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, provided that certain conditions are satisfied – see Q1.5.

 

A separate determination was made in respect of certain agreements connected with the death of a person.

 

Copies of the determinations may be obtained from the OFT.

 

Agreements covered by a s74(3) determination, and satisfying the relevant conditions, are exempt from most Part V rules including s61(1) on execution. However, the Agreements Regulations will apply to any document embodying such an agreement, and to any term expressed in writing – see Q1.2.

 

1.2 Are all bank overdrafts exempt?

 

The s74 determination in respect of bank overdrafts (see Q1.4) applies subject to the following conditions:

· the creditor must inform the OFT in writing of his general intention to enter into such agreements;

· the debtor must be informed, at or before the time an agreement is concluded, of the following:

o the credit limit (if any)

o the annual rate of interest and any charges applicable, and the conditions under which these may be varied

o the procedure for terminating the agreement;

· the above information must be confirmed in writing.

 

Furthermore, where a debtor overdraws a current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor, and the account remains overdrawn for more than three months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than seven days after the end of that period of the annual rate of interest and any charges applicable.

[car2403]

Hi all,

 

 

can someone check the following for me

 

Alliance and leicester car loan

 

Has a deferred option, where after 36 months you can pay a lump sum, or carry on paying monthly

 

I believe the APR is incorrect

 

I have used the OFT's dual calc application but I need to check with you folks as well before I start getting excited

 

Loan amount 11,000

35 payments of 240.14

36th Payment (to include final lump) 4,640.14

 

APR given on document: 8.9%

 

I make it 9.1% via Dual Calc, anyone?

 

(if this is correct, is 0.2 enough to make it incorrectly stated and therefore unenforceable??)

 

I haven't checked these figures, but if your calculations are right this is within the allowed tolerance zone;

 

Permissible tolerances in disclosure of the APR

1A. For the purposes of these Regulations, it shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement to show the APR if there is included in the document -

(1) a rate which exceed the APR by not more than one; or

(2) a rate which falls short of the APR by not more than 0.1; or

(3) in a case to which either of paragraphs 2 or 3 below applies, a rate determined in accordance with the paragraph or such of them as apply to that case.".

[ncf355]

Errr

 

Car, it falls foul of 2)

 

As it states 8.9 and (by my calcs) its 9.1, so the stated rate "falls short" of the actual by 0.2

[maybelline]

whats this Information Commissioners Office investigation letter, is it just me who has one? (loans.co.uk) never contacted them so why are they passing my info on and to who??

 

(sorry mods, wrong place, I have the answer now)

[arbs]

Hi,

 

can someone tell me if s127(3) applies to non cancellable agreements or is it just cancellable ones

[joneshousehold]

I have an update on a complaint I made to Trading Standards about an agreement I received with a copy of the current terms and conditions only. I have been told that Reg 7 of the 1983 Regulations demands that every copy shall include the terms as varied.

The letter goes on to say that the contentious point is whether these varied terms must be in addition to the original copy terms. The creditor's view is that the varied terms only have to be supplied and that it has been confirmed to them by external legal advice.

My Trading Standards office are not happy and have asked the OFT to give a view. I have asked for a copy of that view when they get it.

[shane5408]

interesting, I always thought that yes they can show the new terms but must include a statement notifying what changes have been varied from the original.

 

regards,

shane

[ncf355]

I give up!

 

Their is not contention, how can they prove the right to vary without the original T and C's

 

OFT and TS are really getting my goat

[ian1969uk]

Hi,

 

can someone tell me if s127(3) applies to non cancellable agreements or is it just cancellable ones

 

All agreements dated before 6th April 2007.

[postggj]

hi people

dont mean to but in but you lot seem to know alot about agreements. on my thread welcome finance is now going through the courts. can you take a quick look at my hp agreement on thread 4. does it have all the correct terms etc, using wilson case. need to update my poc. please reply on my thread

many thanks postggj

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi all

 

Got a question that is hindering a couple of my CCA requests,

 

They have not sent me the original T&C. I know it is breach of section 78(1) but what would happen if it went to court.

 

 

Also if you have a CC with a lender and they change to another company ie Accucard-LTSB would the original agreement be OK or would the new lender have to supply a new agreement.

 

Cheers HAK

Cheers HAK

[dpick]

Hi all

 

Got a question that is hindering a couple of my CCA requests,

 

They have not sent me the original T&C. I know it is breach of section 78(1) but what would happen if it went to court.

 

 

Also if you have a CC with a lender and they change to another company ie Accucard-LTSB would the original agreement be OK or would the new lender have to supply a new agreement.

 

Cheers HAK

Cheers HAK

 

Hi this is just my opinion

Not sending original T&C how would they prove that the original terms and conditions had a clause that would allow them to amend the T&C in future. Or that you had allowed them to pass data for DPA etc.

 

I think this would depend on if they had closed the old account and opened a new account for you I do know that I have had three Credit cards that were sold to MBNA and MBNA produced the original agreement for each (enforceable a different kettle of fish)

 

all the best dpick:)

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I have an update on a complaint I made to Trading Standards about an agreement I received with a copy of the current terms and conditions only. I have been told that Reg 7 of the 1983 Regulations demands that every copy shall include the terms as varied.

The letter goes on to say that the contentious point is whether these varied terms must be in addition to the original copy terms. The creditor's view is that the varied terms only have to be supplied and that it has been confirmed to them by external legal advice.

My Trading Standards office are not happy and have asked the OFT to give a view. I have asked for a copy of that view when they get it.

 

Just read the above post.

 

This is unbelievable and relates to my requests.

 

Surely they cant just supply any terms they decide to print

 

HAK

[Goldlady]

Agree - I have been sent t&cs from ten years after the application form was signed which I have ignored.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

section 78 says an agreement and any other document related so in my opinion all the T&C should be produced.

 

The Copy regs 1983 are the worse thing ever and I thing they have not been wrote properly

[maybelline]

Car and PT,

 

when wondering about enforceability, equity and the like Wilson v First County Trust (in particular the case as heard at Court of Appeal, as the House of lords case just re iterates this) is the bigh one to keep in mind

 

Because of a technicality in a incorrectly stated prescribed term, Mrs Wilson's agreement with FCT (Pawnbroker) was deemed unenforceable under S127(3)

 

 

Result:

 

Mrs Wilson put in:

 

BMW Car (pawn security)

£6900 (ordered at the first hearing, following the judge re opening the agreement and reducing interest that was 94.9% by half)

 

Mrs Wilson got out:

 

BMW Car

£5000 (originally loaned by FCT)

£6900 (that she paid following the original hearing)

£662 (Interest on the £6900 paid originally)

 

(FCT also found responsible for costs at Court of Appeal, totalling £662)

 

Now even the most jaded and biased of us can see there is nothing 'fair and equitable' about this, however (for any agreement made prior to April of this year) that (as far as both Court Of Appeal and House of Lords are concerned) is the law of the land

 

If ANY of the prescribed terms are missing or in the slightest way mistated, BIG BANG, game over for the Bank/CCP and Mardi Gras for the claimant

 

As pointed out many times on here TS, OFT, Et Al are the proverbial "chocolate fireguard"

 

Many on here (myself included) have had enough and are taking action personally

 

We will prove cases, and when we do we will ensure higher authoiry is brought to bear on those blatantly failing in there duty to protect the consumer who has neither the time or money needed to vest into taking these people on

 

I myself have spent many a night going through statute, case law and the fantastic contributions of the collective minds here an elsewhere

 

This time will NOT go to waste

 

ncf, thats what I thought, I have read Wilson, and Dimond, they do discuss unjust enrichment but wasnt that in relation to whether s69 interest was included. (I think the judge will decide)

[Peterbard]

Hi all,

 

 

can someone check the following for me

 

Alliance and leicester car loan

 

Has a deferred option, where after 36 months you can pay a lump sum, or carry on paying monthly

 

I believe the APR is incorrect

 

I have used the OFT's dual calc application but I need to check with you folks as well before I start getting excited

 

Loan amount 11,000

35 payments of 240.14

36th Payment (to include final lump) 4,640.14

 

APR given on document: 8.9%

 

I make it 9.1% via Dual Calc, anyone?

 

(if this is correct, is 0.2 enough to make it incorrectly stated and therefore unenforceable??)

Hi

 

I get the APR to be 8.939% which rounds to 8.9% i am afraid.

I use the method dexcribed in the TCC regulations for calculation(IRR) and have double checked. THis is presumming that the first payment is made one montha after the loan was made.

 

THe tollerence for APR's according to the TCC regulations are that figure on the agreement must be accurate to .1% below the actual figure or 1% above.

 

So if the actual fugure was say 10% then 9.9 to 11% would be within tollerence

 

Best regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

In addition to the above .

An incorrect APR would not make an agreement automatically unenforceable under 127 as it is not a prescribd term you may be able to use 127(1)(i) but that would depend again on the court,who would asses the level of prejudice caused by the error.

 

Regards

Petr

[lookinforinfo]

Hi

 

An incorrect APR would not make an agreement automatically unenforceable under 127 as it is not a prescribd term you may be able to use 127(1)(i) but that would depend again on the court,who would asses the level of prejudice caused by the error.

 

Interesting Peter. But what came first-the chicken or the egg? I would have thought that to work out the monthly repayments, the lender would have

had to know what the rate of interest was [the APR]. I accept that in this case the variation was small, but surely were the difference greater, could not an argument be made that as it was the APR figure they were working from, that the monthly figure was wrong, and therefore unenforceable?

In other words, the APR which is not a prescribed was right, which means that the monthly repayments must be wrong, and they are one of the prescribed terms.

[postggj]

Hi

Have You Got A Link For Wilson And Diamon Ref Enrichment

Welcome Finance Are Trying To Use This In There Defence

Many Thanks

[Peterbard]

HI L

 

The interest rate is just the interest on the actual credit given and can be expressed as compound or net interst.

 

THe interst rate is not required to work out the APR.

 

The APR is derived from the Total charge for Credit the Total Credit and the repayment intervals.

 

There is no way of deriving the APR from the interest rate unless their are no other credit charges other than interest. or visa versa as you do not know what esle is included within the TCC.

 

You can if you wish convert a mothly inerest rate to APR on a credit card using the formula 1+interest/100(^12)-1, but this is simply because their are usually no other charges for credit other than interest.

If however the payment inervals where not regular or their was a upfront payment or fees involved the figure for APR would be incorect.

 

 

Best regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi Again

I must start reading the whole of posts before i reply.

The regulations require interest to be be quoted as an annual rate the monthly ones quoted on credit card s are not on their own sufficiant to comply.

 

Best regards

Peter

[postggj]

Very Confused

Welcome Finance Have Come Back Ref Enrichment In There Defence, Dont Want To Hijack This Thread, If Time Check Out My Thread

Best To Start At Thread 4

Many Thanks

[sytra]

Hi sorry to jump in.

 

CCA'd Barclaycard last week on behalf of my sister (used her name, address etc) today she got a letter from them requesting her signature to authorise release of said documents.

 

I am correct in thinking they are trying it on arent i, they dont need her signature to request a CCA do they, i couldn't find it written anywhere?

 

If so i will write back and tell em to just send it out as it doesn't state anywhere that they need a signature.

 

Sytra

[Josie8]

Hi sorry to jump in.

 

CCA'd Barclaycard last week on behalf of my sister (used her name, address etc) today she got a letter from them requesting her signature to authorise release of said documents.

 

I am correct in thinking they are trying it on arent i, they dont need her signature to request a CCA do they, i couldn't find it written anywhere?

 

If so i will write back and tell em to just send it out as it doesn't state anywhere that they need a signature.

 

Sytra

 

 

You could send a signature similar but markedly different.............wicked I Know:razz: