Cap1 & CCA return

[Smarterchick]

Can anyone tell me if this interest and repayment are worked out correctly on this agreement pls: It's an Interest Only loan.

This is exactly as it appears on the agreement and each line in its own box:

 

1) Loan Facility - £64,460

2) Optional PPI - £0

3) Total Loan Amount - £64,460

4) Your Brokers Fee - £3500

5) Loan Administration Fee - £795

6) Monthly rate of Interest (variable) 1.12%

7) Which is the same as a mortgage rate of - 13.44%

8.) Number of Mthly Interest Payments - 180

9) Monthly interest payment (variable) which does not repay any capital - £721.95

10) Title Indemnity fee - £165

 

Loan started Feb 06

 

Thanks

[steven4064]

Because it is interest only, you pay the monthly interest as it accrues- it is not compounded.

 

1.12% of £64460 is £721.95

 

and 12 times 1.12% is 13.44%

 

So, yes, it is correct.

[Smarterchick]

Thanks Steven, that brings me to the next question then, the interest is being charged on the whole loan amount of £64,460 which includes the brokers fee, admin fee and title indemnity fee. Is that correct in an agreement like this?

 

Also, would what you see here adequately provide the 'cost of credit' as so described or what people refer to as 'the prescribed terms ' in your opinion?

 

SC

[steven4064]

THis isn't a regulated agreement so the rules associated with the CCA 1974 do not apply.

 

As it is interest only, all the payemnts are cost of credit.

[Smarterchick]

THis isn't a regulated agreement so the rules associated with the CCA 1974 do not apply.

 

As it is interest only, all the payemnts are cost of credit.

 

 

Ah, but it is a cca regulated agreement Steven, multiple agreement and I'm in court shortly arguing the toss...

Loan Agreement.pdf

[steven4064]

You didn't tell me that

 

In that case, it doesn't have the prescribed terms to make it properly executed (eg total cost of credit). However, it does it have the terms in scehdule 6 to be enforceable but they are not split between the two loans.

 

People have thought this makes the agreement unenforceable (and Francis Bennion's paper on multiple agreements would support this) but a recent case went against this. It is going to appeal.

 

What is your court claim?

[Smarterchick]

You didn't tell me that

 

In that case, it doesn't have the prescribed terms to make it properly executed (eg total cost of credit). However, it does it have the terms in scehdule 6 to be enforceable but they are not split between the two loans.

 

People have thought this makes the agreement unenforceable (and Francis Bennion's paper on multiple agreements would support this) but a recent case went against this. It is going to appeal.

 

What is your court claim?

 

Repo initially for arrears (although paid them at the time of action) -then my counterclaim, agreement is Multiple - and then winds up with s.106d - I want all I paid you back

 

As you know, I am aware of the Heath case and the appeal although I'm hoping they don't use the Heath case as it is slightly different. Also, CCA 74 only goes up to schedule 5, is this Schedule 6 in an amendment?

Edited May 17, 2009 by Smarterchick

[steven4064]

Sorry, shorthand, schedule 6 is in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 and defines what must be in an agreement for it to be enforced by a court under s127(3).

 

IMO, there is no chance they won't use Heath (probably trot out Rankine as well)

[Smarterchick]

Sorry, shorthand, schedule 6 is in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 and defines what must be in an agreement for it to be enforced by a court under s127(3).

 

IMO, there is no chance they won't use Heath (probably trot out Rankine as well)

 

 

Well they booked 2 days for the hearing, they must have something they want to say! Rankines a bonus!! idiots. I'd better make sure my barrister knows all about them both when I see him tomorrow...be Christmas before we get back to court in that case then, anyway, I'm sure Heath will be overturned... Rankine should be overturned and buried too!

 

Thanks Steven, now it's time for the sack...you should too, been on a long day today you have! Nite folks..

[banker_rhymes_with]

I'm sure Heath will be overturned... Rankine should be overturned and buried too!

If there is any justice in this world, that's exactly what should happen.

 

We knew the bankers were self-serving, greedy, dull and could not be trusted.

 

We have been proved right by what has happened in the last 24 Months.

 

We knew the Politicians were self-serving, greedy and out of touch.

 

We have been proved right by what has happened in the last 24 Days.

 

We know the Judiciary is often biased, out of date, out of touch and is often steered by hidden agendas...

 

Let's see if something pops out of the bag to prove that right as well.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[paulwlton]

Anyone a link to Heath?

[Smarterchick]

I Word format:

Heath vs Southern Pacific.doc

[Poor-Credit Borrower]

Hi Smarterchick, unless I'm missing something the agreement that you attached for us is an Unregulated agreement and, hence, not under the 1974 CCA act? I believe that all loans over £25,000 tend to be unregulated nowadays? (I haven't looked at the Heath vs Southern Pacific file yet.)

But steven4064 is much more experienced on this site than I, so probably don't take much notice of what I have said ;-)

[foolishgirl]

PCB, I think the point of SC's argument may be that this has been 'split' into 2 parts each under £25000 & therefore should be considered as seperate 'parts'. If you read the Heath v. S. Pacific judgment above, you will understand the references & their application (or otherwise!)

[Smarterchick]

Take a browse: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html

 

page 1 to 4 tells a lot.

 

SC

[humbleman]

sorry to ask off topic, but does anyone have contact email for Arrow Global,

[Poor-Credit Borrower]

SC, yes it has been very interesting to read about the Multiple Agreements falling within Section 18. And thank you foolishgirl for getting me to read the High Court case of Heath vs S. Pacific Mortgage! That was deemed, by the judge, not to be counted as 2 separate agreements.

Also the comments by pt2537 of our site team, dated late 2008, were very interesting re Egg agreements.

 

I have an Egg loan myself in which I am claiming mis-sold PPI. In fact, I have been successful in the claim but they are now claiming that as my loan is in arrears they are taking the whole amount of the loan off whtever refund I'm getting. Currently I'm disputing the total amount of whatever is owing, let alone whether it is so much in arrears that the "total amount is repayable" straight away. I have been currently been on a reduced payment plan for the last year or so and have missed a couple of these payments, but I don't think that amounts to 'serious' arrears really(?)

 

Steven (of the site team), well done for your unconditional wins against GE Money and Goldfish, which i have just read about!

PCB.

[car2403]

Wasn't the £25k limit lifted?

[Poor-Credit Borrower]

Wasn't the £25k limit lifted?

 

I think you are right, the £25k limited has been lifted. But I think Smarterchick's agreement was dated before then, and at the top of the agreement it said it was "Unregulated" (unless I am misunderstanding something).

[Doc2527]

Hi

 

Under Smarter Chicks, post number 15171 of her loan agreement section 14 d it states that

 

"You understand that your monthly interest does not repay the total loan amount shown in 5 above, which you must pay off in full by the time this agreement ends.":?

 

 

Should we be worried about this??

[steven4064]

What FG said

[Smarterchick]

What FG said

 

Sorry Steven, what did FG say? - that the agreement was in 2 parts? but that 14b is not something even I had absorbed until now until doc mentioned it... Speaks your minds people...tell me in laygirls terms what you mean? What does this imply and what effect could this have on the agreement?

 

Some things take a while for me to take in and fully understand unless spelt out - sorry, I can't always see your trail of thinking - penny drops - I'm away!

[alisindebt]

Hi

 

I am a new member. I wanted to post a new thread, but do not know how???? I am registered as a basic member.

 

Sorry to jump in on this thread, but i could not see any other of getting this info other than by asking.

 

Many thanks for your help.

Edited May 19, 2009 by alisindebt
Hi, you have given me the information that i need, so no need forr any more posts on this thread. Thanks very much!

[heliosfa]

Hi

 

I am a new member. I wanted to post a new thread, but do not know how???? I am registered as a basic member.

 

Sorry to jump in on this thread, but i could not see any other of getting this info other than by asking.

 

Many thanks for your help.

 

Hi Alisindebt,

 

To make a new thread, you need to go to the forum you want it to appear in (e.g. General) and click the button at the top left of the thread list.

 

Hope this helps!

H

[foolishgirl]

Sorry Steven, what did FG say? - that the agreement was in 2 parts? but that 14b is not something even I had absorbed until now until doc mentioned it... Speaks your minds people...tell me in laygirls terms what you mean? What does this imply and what effect could this have on the agreement?

 

 

I thought that the 'split' agreement may be one of the primary points you would be basing your case on SC, which is why you referred to the Heath case & Steven earlier referred to the Bennion statement.

 

Can't find doc's comments - can you supply a link please?

 

I don't know the details of your case but IMO although there is controversy over the Heath (as with the Rankine) your barrister should be well prepared to argue the differences between yours & this as I'm sure they will drag Heath in.

 

Hit me over the head if I got the wrong end of the tale - I have no problem with being called a foolish girl!