Cap1 & CCA return

[haggis1984]

Thanks for that - couldnt find any threads on rankine using the search function

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello EIE!

 

Can only do so via pm as the unique circumstances would be highly likely to identify me.

 

Happy to help, suggest you c.c. a member of the Site Team too, however, to keep it safe and above board.

 

I'm not, but always bear in mind that anyone could be a Troll.

 

So, it's wise to cover your backside when using PM on such occassions. Indeed, if a member of the Site Team would rather they help instead, that's cool with me.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[enoughisenough]

Hi brw if you're a troll then I really do give up. Sound advice though! Using a mobile but will be laptopped up soon.

 

Cheers BRW. EiE.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello EIE!

 

Rest assured, I'm not!

 

Please can you clear some PM space, as your box is full!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[enoughisenough]

Hello BRW

 

Didn't think so somehow!

 

Emptied!

 

Cheers.

[car2403]

All advice should be on open forum - while BRW is very experienced, there's still room to get things wrong. Not all the site team can help, neither, so having a thread, with personal details removed, ensures the correct information is given, or at least sufficiently contradicting opinions can be expressed so the OP can make a fully informed judgment call.

 

Advice via PM is always, always seen as dangerous, no matter what the intentions behind it.

 

Remember, also, that others have been before you - in which case read through the success forums - and others will come after you - in which case they will need a thread to read, so they know what to expect.

 

This is the Consumer Action Group, not the Individual Action Group, after all.

[banker_rhymes_with]

All advice should be on open forum - while BRW is very experienced, there's still room to get things wrong. Not all the site team can help, neither, so having a thread, with personal details removed, ensures the correct information is given, or at least sufficiently contradicting opinions can be expressed so the OP can make a fully informed judgment call.

 

Advice via PM is always, always seen as dangerous, no matter what the intentions behind it.

 

Remember, also, that others have been before you - in which case read through the success forums - and others will come after you - in which case they will need a thread to read, so they know what to expect.

 

This is the Consumer Action Group, not the Individual Action Group, after all.

 

Fully agree.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[enoughisenough]

Yes

 

agreed just worried that posting what is essentially a complete portion of my witness statement might have unforeseen repercussions and in the light of no previous competence in this particular area I am concerned especially when litigation is due. I will post fully on open and try to limit at the sw re the risk of being identifiable. The Issue in the past has been people asking for precise info when I've posted requests for help.

 

No offence to the cmunity intended! I try my best to help on open and although unsolicited pms in which I'm asked for my help by caggers who the disappear give me huge concern. Normally more articulate but using a mobile!

[enoughisenough]

Hi car2403 and BRW

 

This is the Consumer Action Group, not the Individual Action Group, after all.

 

Open Vs Closed.

 

First point Community Action Group: Absolutely right. I do my best by others, as others have done for me, on open and sometimes via pm.

 

Secondly PMs. Can be dangerous - especially the unsolicited ones, and more especially from those who are completely unknown or very new to the cag. I've helped many who have simply disappeared, much to my suspicious annoyance.

 

So yes the dangers of pm become obvious. And after all, disclosure and openness is what we all want to achieve.

 

My caution arises from dominating threads with a post akin to saying "this is my defence/claim what do you think?"

 

When I've been vague, so as not to completely leaving open who I am, I have been told by many 'well I could help but you need to give me the exact details.'

 

No worries though I am sufficiently resourceful to try and figure out things for myself so that the only questions I need to ask are those directly about specific points I can't work out!

 

So I'm in total agreement and have most definitely learned a lesson.

 

Thanks to both for what might be called a lesson in cagiquette!

 

Cheers EiE. Keep the faith.

Edited July 21, 2009 by enoughisenough
typo

[car2403]

I'm not saying don't do it, just make an informed decision.

[enoughisenough]

From one Geordie to another...appreciate..

 

Unless of course you're a mackem, smoggie or agnostic!

 

Regionalism, or any form of ism is by the way not tolerated on this site!

[Liz Southern]

I'm not, but always bear in mind that anyone could be a Troll.

Cheers,

BRW

 

Not even a Greek one, speaking Latin??!!! Kidding. :grin::grin::grin:

Liz

[B3rty]

Just spoke to a debt specialist at community legal advice on this subject and it was like talking to a robot whos vocabulary consists entirely of the words 'no' and 'Rankine'. She said that the precendent set by Rankine was binding and that there's little chance of success in court - even if a lender has defaulted on a CCA request. Little bit worried

 

We know that's not right and can point to enough case law to prove otherwise so don't worry ...however the official channels don't advocate this route for some reason...

 

I recall a few months ago talk that CAB were looking to take a case forward anyone hear any more about this?

[haggis1984]

We know that's not right and can point to enough case law to prove otherwise so don't worry ...however the official channels don't advocate this route for some reason...

 

I recall a few months ago talk that CAB were looking to take a case forward anyone hear any more about this?

 

Could you give me a nudge in the direction of some of this case law? Would really help put my mind at ease

[Stubie]

Could you give me a nudge in the direction of some of this case law? Would really help put my mind at ease

 

Hi,

 

Try digging around in this.

 

BAILII - Case Law Search

 

The case law search is quite powerful if you enter something like "unenforcible" or "credit agreement".

 

Or enter "Wilson", "Hurstanger" or "SPPL".

 

If you dig around on the site you will find others, there's no shortage.

 

Good hunting

[Stubie]

Wilson v First County Trust [2000] EWCA Civ 278 (3 November 2000)

 

Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007)

 

Dimond v. Lovell [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897; [2000] 2 WLR 1121 (11th May, 2000)

 

Walker vs SPPl-e.pdf

[egg-sterminator]

hi guys sorry to jump in . been following threads just joined and seem unable to start a thread the little clicky thread starter thing doesnt like me . any info on whether hal. one 08/05 and ge money 04/06 may be enforcable would be greatly appreciated . have an interesting may 05 agreement where they appear to have signed online box saying they accept ive accepted online conditions and credit checked was ok 8days before i even signed for the agreement ? it was online only . any comments very greatfully recieved . as a side note a friend i just showed CAG to has over 20 cards none younger than 5 yrs all with ppi [his av earnings £270 no ppi will pay now he's in trouble .

[car2403]

There's too many questions there to answer in one go on this thread, Egg-sterminator. There are some interesting answers to the questions you've asked, though.

 

Have a looky at the beginners guide in my signature for more details on starting a new thread, which may help.

[haggis1984]

Wilson v First County Trust [2000] EWCA Civ 278 (3 November 2000)

 

Wilson & Anor v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 (04 April 2007)

 

Dimond v. Lovell [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897; [2000] 2 WLR 1121 (11th May, 2000)

 

[ATTACH]10992[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks!

[Smarterchick]

Can I ask a quick question please? Yes - oh thanks

 

I, and a few hundred others, have a charge on a Credit Agreement for a Title Indemnity Insurance generally around £135. You can't have the loan without it, you are offered an option to pay it upfront or it gets added to the loan and you pay interest at the loan rates averaging 15% (sub prime of course) for the period of the loan.

 

It is on the face of the credit agreement and included in all the figures so I am told this could be a prescribed term

 

Q1) Would that be correct?

 

Swift Advances plc who provide these loans will not supply the insurance policy document to anyone who asks as they say it protects them rather than us, but the debtor pays for it. We believe they may 'purchase' this insurance from their sister company Swift 1st Ltd who are licensed to sell Insurance. Given the extremely low risk as the loans are generally 2nd charge and the title already secured and checked by the 1st charge mortgage holder, we believe the cost of this insurance could be deemed extortionate.

 

Q2) Does anyone know, despite it being 'only' £135 + interest whether this could be deemed an ' Extortionate Credit Bargain' or any other such term or covered by any other regulation/rule? (if you multply this amount by 20-30,000 customers it becomes a rather profitable rip-off)

 

Q3) What are the effects on the credit agreement itself of this insurance given the above?

 

Thank you.

 

SC

[Smarterchick]

bump - the above anyone?

[Josie8]

Can I ask a quick question please? Yes - oh thanks

 

I, and a few hundred others, have a charge on a Credit Agreement for a Title Indemnity Insurance generally around £135. You can't have the loan without it, you are offered an option to pay it upfront or it gets added to the loan and you pay interest at the loan rates averaging 15% (sub prime of course) for the period of the loan.

 

It is on the face of the credit agreement and included in all the figures so I am told this could be a prescribed term

 

Q1) Would that be correct?

 

Swift Advances plc who provide these loans will not supply the insurance policy document to anyone who asks as they say it protects them rather than us, but the debtor pays for it. We believe they may 'purchase' this insurance from their sister company Swift 1st Ltd who are licensed to sell Insurance. Given the extremely low risk as the loans are generally 2nd charge and the title already secured and checked by the 1st charge mortgage holder, we believe the cost of this insurance could be deemed extortionate.

 

Q2) Does anyone know, despite it being 'only' £135 + interest whether this could be deemed an ' Extortionate Credit Bargain' or any other such term or covered by any other regulation/rule? (if you multply this amount by 20-30,000 customers it becomes a rather profitable rip-off)

 

Q3) What are the effects on the credit agreement itself of this insurance given the above?

 

Thank you.

 

SC

 

If it is a regulated credit agreement do a s.77 request. They have to provide a copy of any document mentioned in the agreement - including in this case the insurance policy

[Smarterchick]

If it is a regulated credit agreement do a s.77 request. They have to provide a copy of any document mentioned in the agreement - including in this case the insurance policy

 

Hi Josie, this was just a further advance given on the same day as the mortgage for home improvements, no mention of the CCA, that's what I am asking - should it have been?

 

SC

[Josie8]

Hi Josie, this was just a further advance given on the same day as the mortgage for home improvements, no mention of the CCA, that's what I am asking - should it have been?

 

SC

 

 

Yes as it is a restricted creditor supplier agreement - how much was the home improvement loan for? Did any thing fo to redeem an exisiting loan or arrears?

[Smarterchick]

Hi Josie, this was just a further advance given on the same day as the mortgage for home improvements, no mention of the CCA, that's what I am asking - should it have been?

 

SC

 

It's late, sorry, I'd posted about a mortgage somewhere and thought you'd replied to that - gone gaga..forget my last reply! sorry!