Cap1 & CCA return

[humbleman]

at the moment the courts decision making process is predicated upon the fact that these are national/international institutions and could not possibly be wrong or have not followed the correct procedures- let alone falsify anything

 

 

Correct

 

With the recent outcome of cases it seems little point of CCA 1974.

 

A lender can come up with any number of bits of paper and say that this is the agreement.

 

They can re issue or rectify a DN

 

When they get it wrong they just say -oh it's an error

 

When they get got out with their own documents then they claim- it's privileged information between them and the lawyers.

 

and the judges seems to be buying all the crap from them, it's become more of a burden of proof on the defendant to disprove the Claimants case.

 

I THINK it's about time that we told the judiciary that the law is there and they can't change it piece meal without going through the parliament.

[haggis1984]

There's a case at the moment where a recreated agreement has been submitted for enforcement.

 

Hey mate,

 

Is there a thread for it on cag?

[patrickq1]

I THINK it's about time that we told the judiciary that the law is there and they can't change it piece meal without going through the parliament.

i think humble that the judiciary are now making a habit of ignoring the law and now making there own laws to suit themselves and others were they have possibly a vested intrest

[Peterbard]

Hi

A week last Wednesday I spent an afternoon arguing for a pro consumer response to the OFT guideline in a meeting with the local MP and various members of the third party sector in my area.

There where also various members of the business community present.

Our line was that the guidelines where altogether to lenient on creditors in general and specifically they re-enforced the current backlash to all the ill informed court action that has been so prevalent in the media.

That the Manchester Mercantile Case in indicating that a creditor did not have to keep record of an agreement in a “proof positive “ form defeated the very idea of the contract.

The counters argument was of course the Rankine fiasco etc. and the rise in Claims Companies who are making a business out of promising to get people out of paying there debts.

Seems to me that what we re suffering now is a backlash to what has happened in the last couple of years,. Initially when we first discovered that creditors could be held accountable for what they promised on an agreement and could flex the legal muscle to make sure they did , we were using the regulations as they where intended, for our protection.

Then as usual someone spotted a business opportunity.

This in my view was wrong and a misuse of the intent of the act.

What has happened now is that some banks and creditors have seized the opportunity to use the bad press created by the Rankines and the like, to push through guidelines and common law that two years ago would not have been entertained.

What has to be found now is the middle ground and get back to the position where the laws are used as they were intended.

Peter

[humbleman]

How about a nicely drafted/illustrated letter to all the courts.

[patrickq1]

i think that would get the heckles up of the SUUUPREEEME JUUUDICIARY as they are now a law unto themselves sitting on their ivory thrones

[MAGDA]

Hey mate,

 

Is there a thread for it on cag?

 

Think this is the one:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/191784-shakespeare62-nastybank-24.html

[lookinforinfo]

Would anyone care to make an assessment on the validity of this agreement for someone on another thread please.

http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae255/Daisellar/CCATBI.jpg

 

Diddydicky, the poster has apparently doctored their address so just looking if the agreement is ok.

 

I obviously missed the chance at the time to say that creditors are not the only ones who can reconstitute agreements.

 

From the lack of any comments other than from Diddydicky, can I take it that the agreement is valid?

[haggis1984]

Think this is the one:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/191784-shakespeare62-nastybank-24.html

 

Thanks MAGDA, ill be following it with interest

[johnerog]

The arithmetic looks wrong to me. Total Sum Payable £4598.08 (?)and the insurance column total cash price. Which means the repayments are wrong.

Edited February 11, 2010 by johnerog
wrong quote

[humbleman]

perhaps we can get our MPs to write to the judges ahead of the hearing like this one

 

BBC News - Salmond backs Nicola Sturgeon over fraud plea

[gh2008]

From the lack of any comments other than from Diddydicky, can I take it that the agreement is valid?

 

Figures all add up ok Apr is spot on - and I mean spot on!!

sorry

 

All assuming that the first repayment was about 1 month after the signing - but as it's 84 month agreement I doubt that would have much impact on the APR anyway.

[lookinforinfo]

The arithmetic looks wrong to me. Total Sum Payable £4598.08 (?)and the insurance column total cash price. Which means the repayments are wrong.

 

Thanks for that johnerog, though the OP says that the original was not done by hand, so the £4598.08 as total cash price may well be £9598.08 on the original. Reason for dismissal if they can't

locate the original or would a Court order amend it?

 

Can't see anything wrong with the insurance-are you reading £519.99 instead of £519.49. The handwriting makes it hard to

distinguish between 4 and 9.

[diddydicky]

Diddydicky, the poster has apparently doctored their address so just looking if the agreement is ok.

 

I obviously missed the chance at the time to say that creditors are not the only ones who can reconstitute agreements.

 

From the lack of any comments other than from Diddydicky, can I take it that the agreement is valid?

 

sorry- if the figures are correct then it looks like a sound agreement to me

[fleeced_by_rbos]

What about the prescribed terms. I'm not sure how they are supposed to be stated for loans as opposed to credit cards, but there may be something there.

[means2anend]

Diddydicky, the poster has apparently doctored their address so just looking if the agreement is ok.

 

I obviously missed the chance at the time to say that creditors are not the only ones who can reconstitute agreements.

 

From the lack of any comments other than from Diddydicky, can I take it that the agreement is valid?

 

Where is the signature where it says sign only if you wish to be legally bound?

Where are the words 'fixed' or 'variable' AFTER the letters APR...?

Where is the statement that says that the APR either 'does or does NOT assume any variations in interest rate,... APR' etc...? which then determines whether it is stated as FIXED or VARIABLE

Where is the Heading TOTAL CHARGE FOR CREDIT?

Are there any administrative fees or brokerage fees that were involved as part of you receiving the loan..if so these must be transparent too and as constituent elements of that Total Charge for Credit

Is that Insurance loan TRULY OPTIONAL...merely having a box on that page for you to tick does NOT make it AUTOMATICALLY OPTIONAL.On a PROPER CONSTRUCTION of that agreement is it such that if you did not want the insurance they would not let you have the main loan.In other words had you NOT have ticked that insurance box would they still have let you have that loan without the 'optional insurance'...If not THEN IT WOULD NOT BE OPTIONAL on a proper construction.BUT CONDITIONAL...

 

ASSUMING that it was TRULY OPTIONAL are they properly including the cost of that element of the loan into the TOTAL CHARGE FOR CREDIT.In other words is it part of the main agreement but secondary to it with the same creditor.

 

For example. if you decided to take your insurance from a separate provider then that cost of the insurance would not be part of the TOTAL COST of the borrowing and should not be presented and packaged as so otherwise this could artificially increase your repayments.

 

But it should be presented as a simple monthly premium in numerical terms and not as a percentage (and stated so on your monthly statement)

I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT AGREEMENT HAS GOT PROBLEMS!

 

m2ae

Edited February 11, 2010 by means2anend

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Means.... I am a little out of practice myself with agreements.

Have only had one in the last 7 or 8 years and that one has been lost by the creditor.

[patrickq1]

also lets not forget any commissions paid ? are they included in the loan etc

[means2anend]

Thanks for that Means.... I am a little out of practice myself with agreements.

Have only had one in the last 7 or 8 years and that one has been lost by the creditor.

 

 

The NEXT QUESTION the JUDGES would ask themselves NOW is...have you been subject to any prejudice as a result..

 

Well according to DD and the others I have taken account of their input that the agreement is 'spot on and accurate' in terms of the figures...

 

It is irrelevant whether or not there has been or has not been any prejudice to you...this agreement was made in 1999 and therefore s127(3) the Court HAS NO DISCRETION to enquire into whether you suffered prejudice..

 

Lord NIcholls utterances (House of Lords) come to mind

''Undoubtedly , as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh , in its adverse consequences for a lender.He loses all his rights under the agreement including his rights to any security which has been lodged.Consequently the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall''

 

I cannot remember the case off hand but am sure that any one of the learned gentlemen and ladies on this thread will help you.

 

m2ae:)

[Peterbard]

Would anyone care to make an assessment on the validity of this agreement for someone on another thread please.

http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae255/Daisellar/CCATBI.jpg

 

Hi

 

Just had a quick peek at this

 

Fixed sum presccribed terms are repayment amounts and intervals and total credit.

 

These seem to be OK.

 

THe insurance is sepperated out and makes part of the total credit which is fine if it is truly optional.

 

The APR is stated the term variable is not required on this type of loan

 

Ther should also be a term for interest which i could not see but may be there , anyway it is not a prescribed term on this type of agreement.

 

Peter

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Peter.

[means2anend]

Does anyone know where I can find the Original Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 SI 1553 BUT without the 2004 amendments

 

Thanks

 

m2ae

[Peterbard]

Hi

I havve set of the orriginals but it is a document and i do not have a scanner,there is an elctronic set on here somewhere and PT257 says he has a set.Otherswise it is a trip to the library,they stock them at our local in Tameside i should think they will at yours.

 

Peter

[cab1ne]

Does anyone know where I can find the Original Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 SI 1553 BUT without the 2004 amendments

 

Thanks

 

m2ae

 

http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/Consumer_Credit_%28Agreements%29_Regs_1983.pdf

 

cab

[Peterbard]

Hi PT 257

 

I understand you have a case coming up next month that will set precedent in the Cardiff mercantile court.

 

I believe that it involves amongst other things the arguments that the “Applied limit” in egg agreement s is a breach of section 127(3).

 

As you can imagine this is of interest to a lot of us on here, could you give us some detail of the trial date yet.

 

Will you be acting for defence in this case particularly relevant I think in view of the Manchester case.

 

What other issues will be brought at this hearing will it form part of the guidelines re enforcement intersection 65-127(3).

 

Will the outcome of this be added to the recent OFT draft guidlines at some future date.

 

This will I think you said be in the Mercantile court so doesn’t this mean that the results will be available also will it be possible to attend the hearing as a spectator.

 

Peter