Cap1 & CCA return

[ODC]

An HL Legal threatogram costs as little as 75p including postage, according to their website (which makes enlightening reading).

 

Obviously you get what you pay for then:D

[Viscount Stair]

Their About Use page comes pretty close to admitting that they are carrying on unlicensed consumer credit activity. The solicitors' group license only covers activities in the course of practice as a solicitor, not a business that "blends" the service of a solicitor with those of a debt collection agency.

[patrickq1]

Their About Use page comes pretty close to admitting that they are carrying on unlicensed consumer credit activity. The solicitors' group license only covers activities in the course of practice as a solicitor, not a business that "blends" the service of a solicitor with those of a debt collection agency.

 

they aught to get lesson from HFO then huh lol

patrickq1

[SteveH2508]

An HL Legal threatogram costs as little as 75p including postage, according to their website (which makes enlightening reading).

 

Stamp c35p - envelope and paper c5p - crayon - c2p - banana for the monkey c5p - still a profit there then!

[steven4064]

Where do you get bananas for 5p?

[underdog13]

You buy them from a DCA, Steven - they never pay full price for anything;) Mind you, if they charge you 5p for them, you can bet they only paid 1p

[SteveH2508]

Where do you get bananas for 5p?

 

I hate the things so I was guesstimating through a slightly wine-induced haze (bit like DCAs and their charges really )

[SB100]

Not sure where the appropriate place is for this- please move it appropriately mods - BBC NEWS | Business | US credit card firms clamp down

[angry cat]

Not sure where the appropriate place is for this- please move it appropriately mods - BBC NEWS | Business | US credit card firms clamp down

 

I have posted the link in the General and debt collection forums.

 

MBNA, CitiGroup, Amex and CapOne, times up!

[MAGDA]

Hi, don't know if anyone can help on this. I have an ex FN account which is subject to court proceedings and just been going through all of the paperwork. Asset Link claim they acquired the account on 23rd March 2005 when the balance was £4483.00. On 3rd July 2006 they applied interest of £895.37 bringing the balance (which as of 30th May'06 was £4425) to £5320.00. I have tried to check if this is ok, using the contractual rate of interest which was APR 12.9 (1.016 monthly rate) but don't get a figure of £895, more like £739.00. Just wondering if someone could tell me if Link's figures are correct or not. Many thanks, magda

 

Just to add, prior to this no interest was being charged, as I was making payments (token) and following the sudden interest charge, Link then applied interest again on 1st August at £26.84 on a balance of £5316.00, which they have then continued to do, having a nice effect on the o/s balance.

Edited June 8, 2009 by MAGDA

[steven4064]

On the basis of the figures you give, I make the interest £724.68. So I don't think they have got it right. Are they entitled to add interest at all?

[MAGDA]

On the basis of the figures you give, I make the interest £724.68. So I don't think they have got it right. Are they entitled to add interest at all?

 

Hi, thanks Steven, in the original agreement it states that "interest on the amount payable will be payable at the rate stated at letter D on the front of this agreement (rate of interest 1.016% pm) and shall be payable before any court judgement and after any court judgement." So I guess this means that Link can also continue to charge interest? The difference in the amounts is quite a bit considering that they then continued to charge interest based on their calculation.

 

This is one of those ex First National Agreements. The OFT took FN to court on this issue, but OFT lost.

 

If the interest is wrong, they have been charging interest for a number of years on the incorrect amount, so the figure they are now suing for will be incorrect also.

 

Many thanks, Magda

[Viscount Stair]

If the DN was served on or after 1 Oct 2008, it needed to include the post-judgment interest wording.

 

There is also a requirement for regular post-judgment interest notices to be served but I am not so familiar with that requirement.

[MAGDA]

Thanks Viscount, my DN was supposedly served around 2004/05, but they haven't managed to come up with it yet, still saying they are waiting for the OC to find it:rolleyes:, and this claim has dragged on for more than a year now.

[johnerog]

Hi. Magda.

I think its up to the court to decide if interest can be charged or not. Was that bit in the original contract?

[MAGDA]

Hi. Magda.

I think its up to the court to decide if interest can be charged or not. Was that bit in the original contract?

 

Hi, yes, unfortunately it said in the agreement that they can charge interest before judgement and after, so I suppose that is enough. I know that OFT did take FN to court re: post judgement interest, but they (OFT) lost. I imagine as Link now own the debt they can also continue to charge interest in the same way. Many thanks, Magda

[make them aktiv runners]

Magda I think you are missing a very important point made by Steven.

 

Indeed Link purchased the right to receive the debt as at sale date, however, did they also purchase the right to receive interest in line with the original contract? The answer is in the DOA and another contract document referred to in said DOA.

 

PS. I would put the question up in debt forum too as I am sure it has come up before.

[MAGDA]

Magda I think you are missing a very important point made by Steven.

 

Indeed Link purchased the right to receive the debt as at sale date, however, did they also purchase the right to receive interest in line with the original contract? The answer is in the DOA and another contract document referred to in said DOA.

 

PS. I would put the question up in debt forum too as I am sure it has come up before.

 

Hi Aktiv, I see what you mean about the interest and whether they have a legal right to charge it. I have requested the DoA in a cpr 31.14 request and also cpr 18 when proceedings first began. They replied recently to say that I had no right to see the actual assignment. However, I was kindly given a letter explaining why this is not so, and I have written again stating that as a matter of law etc I am entitled to see this document. Just waiting to hear back again now. I do have a thread on this, as it is one of two Link claims currently back up and running again. Many thanks for the above, Magda

[rob20042513]

Hi

 

I purchased a car back in june 2008, however i have done a subject access request and all my documentation has now come back from welcome.

 

My agreement states 'Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'

 

However i purchased a car from them and surely my agreement should say 'Hire Purchase agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974'

 

Anyone have any suggestions whether this is now enforceable????

 

Also in the terms and conditions and agreement nothing is mentioned about repossession or termination rights????

[heliosfa]

Hi

 

I purchased a car back in june 2008, however i have done a subject access request and all my documentation has now come back from welcome.

 

My agreement states 'Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'

 

However i purchased a car from them and surely my agreement should say 'Hire Purchase agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974'

 

Anyone have any suggestions whether this is now enforceable???

 

Depends if it was a HP agreement or a loan agreement, and we would need to see the agreement to determine it. You can have "personal loans" that are restricted use to buy the car.

 

Can you post a copy please?

 

H

[presumeddead]

can antone help ( and please excuse me if this is the wrong thread) I have a managed loan with HSBC basically the repayment schedule was mis-stated, HSBC have confirmed this in writing. Having written the letters to explain that the account is therefore unenforceable, they have written back saying:

 

"We do not agree that this is a serious error hat would render the account unenforceable.....you have clearly had the benefits of the monies withdrawn under the agreement.....we will exercise the right to proceed against you for recovery/ contact credit reference agencies...."

 

My question is what do i do next - sit and wait or be more proactive and reply, and if so saying what?

 

would be truly greatful for any help.

[car2403]

can antone help ( and please excuse me if this is the wrong thread) I have a managed loan with HSBC basically the repayment schedule was mis-stated, HSBC have confirmed this in writing. Having written the letters to explain that the account is therefore unenforceable, they have written back saying:

 

"We do not agree that this is a serious error hat would render the account unenforceable.....you have clearly had the benefits of the monies withdrawn under the agreement.....we will exercise the right to proceed against you for recovery/ contact credit reference agencies...."

 

My question is what do i do next - sit and wait or be more proactive and reply, and if so saying what?

 

would be truly greatful for any help.

 

Have you CCA'd them, then?

 

I'd suggest you start a new thread in the legal issues or general debt forums and post a copy of their response, including the agreement they have sent, if any, with personal details removed of course, so we can see if it is indeed enforceable or not.

 

Just because they say it's enforceable, doesn't necessarily mean that it is

 

There's some help starting a new thread in my signature, below - beginners guide to CAG - if you're at all unsure

[presumeddead]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/190821-hsbc-does-incorrect-unenforceable.html Is the link (which hopefully works) have scanned in the agreement and letter on that thread. In light of their most recent letter though, could really do with advice re. next move.

[lawyerscum2003]

If a loan is in excess of £25000.00 but purports to be regulated by the CCA, is it enforceable. I have a claim against the HSBC. I borrowed £41000.00. The loan agreement says its a regulated agreement. When I advised them that the limit under the CCA was £25k, they worte to tell me that it is not in fact regulated and that I dont have the protection of the prescribed terms that they have clearly breached.

 

Anyone know of any case law on this?

[samanthasquig]

If a loan is in excess of £25000.00 but purports to be regulated by the CCA, is it enforceable. I have a claim against the HSBC. I borrowed £41000.00. The loan agreement says its a regulated agreement. When I advised them that the limit under the CCA was £25k, they worte to tell me that it is not in fact regulated and that I dont have the protection of the prescribed terms that they have clearly breached.

 

Anyone know of any case law on this?

 

If the loan was prior to Aprill 2008 it would not be covered by the cca 1974.

 

It would be regulated by the FSA.

They are correct in saying that the prescribed terms are of no use to you and that unenforceablity under the cca 1974 is not an option as this would be an exempt agreement.