Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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 4939 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

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

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

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't tell me that :rolleyes:

 

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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't tell me that :rolleyes:

 

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 :D

 

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 by Smarterchick
Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :p 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! :p

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Heath will be overturned...:wink: 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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??

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :roll: - penny drops - I'm away! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 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!
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 newthread.gif button at the top left of the thread list.

 

Hope this helps!

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4939 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...