Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM   1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack  Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached   2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00.  The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month.   3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement,   Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us.   Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement   9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate   4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:-   a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement number 756050. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     Thw total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by Firrst class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges ]= 5.  A the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or  alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage.   Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs.   Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024   What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4970 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just read Carey again...

 

HHJ WAKSMAN @ para 15 -

 

''Then by Regulation 6 and Schedule 6 the following terms had to be contained in regulated agreement for running account credit if it was not to be a IEA. and were prescribed for the purposes of s61(1)(a): amongst other terms

.....'' a term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement (paragrapn 4 of Schedule 6)......I shall refer to these as THE PRESCRIBED TERMS'

 

(Note how he ends by saying he refers to these as Prescribed Terms.)

 

So there is your answer definitively and under authority Magda.

 

Best o' luck with those dis-agreements:D

 

 

m2ae:D

 

so being mis-stated is equally as bad:confused:

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

at para 22

 

''Accordingly, non-compliance with the relevant regulations is capable of being cured upon application by the court unless the document signed by the debtor did not contain the Prescribed Terms.In such a case the non compliance cannot be cured and, in the words of Lord Hoffman in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1AC 384 @ p397F, the agreement is ''irredeemably unenforceable''.

This suggests that the contract may be capable of being null and void through rescission and any reporting to the CRA's stopped and adverse information corrected and both parties put back into the position they were before the contract was 'executed'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Magda, it would.

 

thanks vint

 

Just read Carey again...

 

HHJ WAKSMAN @ para 15 -

 

''Then by Regulation 6 and Schedule 6 the following terms had to be contained in regulated agreement for running account credit if it was not to be a IEA. and were prescribed for the purposes of s61(1)(a): amongst other terms

.....'' a term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement (paragrapn 4 of Schedule 6)......I shall refer to these as THE PRESCRIBED TERMS'

 

(Note how he ends by saying he refers to these as Prescribed Terms.)

 

So there is your answer definitively and under authority Magda.

 

Best o' luck with those dis-agreements:D

 

 

m2ae:D

 

many thanks for your help on this m2ae,

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks m2ae - it's amazing how many creditors (although I shouldn't really say amazing - we are all used to their failings by now!) didn't put the actual rate of interest, just the APR - I have an Abbey loan (fortunately they have now crawled back under their stone for the time being) and that just states APR, nothing else either.

 

Looks like these agreements are unenforceable then....

 

 

thanks for the info, Magda

 

My understanding is that the APR isn't a prescribed term for fixed rate loans. However, if the agreement is variable the interest rate (prescribed term) would need to be stated at the date of execution.

 

Furthermore, a tolerance breach or the lack of the APR is not fatal in so far as the court has discretion on a schedule one breach.

 

Please correct me if the above is incorrect.

 

PW

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the APR isn't a prescribed term for fixed rate loans. However, if the agreement is variable the interest rate (prescribed term) would need to be stated at the date of execution.

 

Furthermore, a tolerance breach or the lack of the APR is not fatal in so far as the court has discretion on a schedule one breach.

 

Please correct me if the above is incorrect.

 

PW

 

i agree:D

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

example:

if you have an APR @\13.8% and a Rate of interest @ 10.36% per annum.

but the Rate of interest should be 12.5% nominal annual and 13.2% effective annual and your agreement is pre april 2007, just slap the judge round the back of his tab and send him packing:)

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

The agreements I have just state "an annual percentage rate equivalent to 11.9% APR - so the APR is stated - would it still be necessary to state the actual rate of interest as discussed above? ONe is for a credit card (just the APR again) the other is a fixed sum loan - it doesn't say anything about the interest being variable. From what I understand from the other posts above, the actual rate of interest should be stated as it is a prescribed term. Just wondering now as Paul commented that "if the agreement is variable" the interest rate would need to be stated. Not questioning the replies I've already had, just wondering about the bit to do with whether the interest is variable or not.

 

 

Magda

Edited by MAGDA
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the APR isn't a prescribed term for fixed rate loans. However, if the agreement is variable the interest rate (prescribed term) would need to be stated at the date of execution.

 

Furthermore, a tolerance breach or the lack of the APR is not fatal in so far as the court has discretion on a schedule one breach.

 

Please correct me if the above is incorrect.

 

PW

 

Thanks Paul, mine has got the APR, but not the interest rate.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a cynical bug*er, I think the CMC's and their legal representatives are not prepared to fight as they potrayed initially. They were being rewarded by success fees that were being paid by the banks and the CC companies on the easier cases. Now it is becoming tougher and as more and more of the finance companies fight back, it appears CMC's are changing their tactics. Mine, I believe, is looking at the prospect of negotiating with the banks etc for settlements between 15-25% and charge a fee to their clients on the savings made. Certainly quicker and alot of money to be earned. Rather than wait to receive the monies over 5 years (as they will under an IVA) the banks and credit card companies will get some of their money, the CMC's and solicitors get their pound of flesh and we will save about 50-60% of our debt but our credit files will be marked accordingly. The Government (I believe) will be supportive of this because we will all be better off eventually and the economy will improve for most.

Like I said, I am a cynical bug*er

 

SHB

 

try being less cynical and more factual

 

there is only ONE reason the CMC's are backing out- and that is because when they set up these companies to con people out of 4-500 quid they thought it was going to be "money for old rope"

 

faced with the possibility that they might have to make some expenditure and actually fight the credit card companies - possibly incurring a loss in the process- they are just looking for a bail out

Link to post
Share on other sites

try being less cynical and more factual

 

there is only ONE reason the CMC's are backing out- and that is because when they set up these companies to con people out of 4-500 quid they thought it was going to be "money for old rope"

 

faced with the possibility that they might have to make some expenditure and actually fight the credit card companies - possibly incurring a loss in the process- they are just looking for a bail out

 

DD, With all due respect, how could I be more factual. My initial post states what happening to me and what is likely to happen to others who have used CMC's. Lets not forget, I like many others didnt know where to turn once debts became unaffordable and as a result was grateful of their initial support. In hindsight, I wouldnt have used them but I discovered CAG long after I started this long journey against these robbing tos*ers. Cynical??? You better believe I am because these scroats have made my life and that of my family hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The interest rate is a prescribed term on credit agreementsdated before april 7th 2007 (exept fixed sum).

 

The APR is required on all agreements.

 

After april 2007 the interest rate is required to be on all types of agreement.

 

Although the APR is not a prescribed tem it can be used to challenge the agreement under section 127(1) which is still active.

 

Regards

Peter

 

Just dug this old reply out from Peter, couldn't find it before, with so many posts on here now.

 

It seems if an agreement was for a fixed sum, then the interest rate didn't need to be shown pre 2007.

 

Thought this might be helpful to anyone else with this issue.

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi - so as it stands; creditors are using reconstituted agreements for enforcement. Is there anything left to do but give up and go bankrupt o

r down IVA route? Really disappointing. I attach latest from OFT following Manchester but also wonder is it plausible to put off action by gping down the lack of interest info and the fact that credit limits were upped unilaterally? Thanks

OFT Info.doc

OFT1175con.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain how the Manchester cases and the OFT guidance (as supplied by jakmgb) can possibly be correct when Francis Bennion and Sir Andrew Morrit previously established the meaning of uneforceable and the reason for it as being "if a creditor couldn't be bothered to issue a properly executed agreement then they deserve to have it found unenforceable and no court has the right to relieve it from that penalty" with additional list of things they can't do when it is uneforceable. It seems that the Manchester court and the OFT have now decided to ignore the consumer protection provisions and roll over to have their tummies tickled by the big banks.

 

Or am I just peeved that the meaning we thought the Act had is not the case?

 

FBR

I wonder if MBNA are the new Enron :roll:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain how the Manchester cases and the OFT guidance (as supplied by jakmgb) can possibly be correct....

 

They key is s77/78/79, not enforcement in court.

 

Have you been over here?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html

 

uteb

Link to post
Share on other sites

They key is s77/78/79, not enforcement in court.

 

Have you been over here?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html

 

uteb

 

 

 

 

Yes. that's a very good thread. People over there are beginning to get a good understanding of the Manchester cases. Once you have a good read you will actually see that the judgements in those cases haven't really changed much. In fact they reinforce what we already knew.

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, this refers (as it says in the first two lines of text on both documents, to what the creditor may provide in response to a s77/79 request

 

which it totally different from enforcing the agreement in court

 

notwithstanding which -i doubt that there is any need for bankruptcy or IVA but start a new thread and tell us your probs and we will try to help you

 

remember its always darkest just before dawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi stevehatesbankers

 

That sounds interesting. I've recently been told that the solicitors appointed by my CMC will not be pursuing my case any further, and I am now considering an IVA.

 

However, if what you're saying above is correct, I would be more interested in settling at 25% instead of being tied into the IVA for five years.

 

Do you know of anyone who has done this?

 

Regards

socleirigh

 

If you can lay your hands on 25%+ (from 3rd party funds ;)) then you could consider a lump sum IVA.

 

uteb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, one creditor, Money Shop, has said to me that their original agreement was destroyed in some floods, but they could provide a re-constituted agreement (without signature) from their records - I was wondering whether that would be admissible? PCB

 

For s77-79 then yes.

 

For enforcement I would say no. They would also need to prove the flood happened. If this could be enforced then there could be a lot of "floods" and "fires" at creditors next week.

 

I think of is as I lost £1000 when it got chewed up in my washing machine. I go to the bank to get my replacements, but they're not having any of it!

 

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

uteb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, one creditor, Money Shop, has said to me that their original agreement was destroyed in some floods, but they could provide a re-constituted agreement (without signature) from their records - I was wondering whether that would be admissible? PCB

 

but you didnt sign an agreement did you? (;), so a reconstituted agreement without a signature would be as useful to them as a chocolate teapot!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure whether I did sign it? I had paid a little of it back through a debt mgmt co, but when I changed to First Step Finance (see another thread of that title!) they insisted in challenging the agreement: I probably wouldn't have bothered as I owe them rather a small amount compared to some other creditors! and would probably have been happy paying them back £1 a month.

Edited by Poor-Credit Borrower
An inaccuaracy in the first sentence
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4970 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...