Cap1 & CCA return

[cab1ne]

Yes, exactly, they are quite happy to represent you if you have the odd £10,000 going spare! In which case, you wouldn't be on this forum in the first place....

 

Thanks for checking, strange, because if the interest rate is a prescribed term, you would think it would be unenforceable in that case, and they would be on to a winner.

 

and the need for a 90% chance of winning. WE WISH:(

 

cab

[Desperate Daniella]

With regard to the Manchester test case, it was clear that the barristers acting for the CMC clients were completely outclassed by those instructed by the banks. I googled all of them. Two of the girls from a Northern (Manchester?) chambers had no experience of Consumer Credit on their Chambers' CVs, while one of the girls for the bank was described as a "front runner" or something like that - it meant she was mega-talented. Another QC for the Bank comes from a fabulous Chambers with over 20 QCs in the set. It was hardly surprising the judge went with them.

[cab1ne]

Another QC for the Bank comes from a fabulous Chambers with over 20 QCs in the set.

 

you could'nt get there phone numbers by any chance.

 

cab

[MAGDA]

and the need for a 90% chance of winning. WE WISH:(

 

cab

 

Yes, very nice odds aren't they.... that's why you can't get anyone to take on a claim (if you're the defendant) for an overdraft (on a CFA basis) for love nor money. Has to be a pretty sure bet.

[cab1ne]

Yes, very nice odds aren't they.... that's why you can't get anyone to take on a claim for an overdraft (on a CFA basis) for love nor money. Has to be a pretty sure bet.

 

10 brownie points for you magda "SPOT ON"

 

cab

[Desperate Daniella]

Absolutely. It's becoming increasingly clear that if you don't have money justice is hard to come by too.

 

[Poor-Credit Borrower]

With regard to the Manchester test case, it was clear that the barristers acting for the CMC clients were completely outclassed by those instructed by the banks. I googled all of them. Two of the girls from a Northern (Manchester?) chambers had no experience of Consumer Credit on their Chambers' CVs, while one of the girls for the bank was described as a "front runner" or something like that - it meant she was mega-talented. Another QC for the Bank comes from a fabulous Chambers with over 20 QCs in the set. It was hardly surprising the judge went with them.

 

Well done with your research Daniella

 

Must log off now I'm afraid, I'll probably catch up with the discussion tomorrow

Edited March 3, 2010 by Poor-Credit Borrower
grammatical

[MAGDA]

Absolutely. It's becoming increasingly clear that if you don't have money justice is hard to come by too.

 

 

 

Yes, it is. The letters that you receive from the claimant always say something about seeking legal advice if you are unsure as to the meaning, which, again, would be absolutely great if we had the money to do that. I honestly believe that no matter how well informed you are, a good barrister is always going to get the judge's attention, that's why it is always better to get the claim struck out if you can before it gets to the point of trial.

 

 

Magda

[Desperate Daniella]

Thank you, PCB.

 

Absolutely, Magda.

 

Bradley Say from Gough Square Chambers (who was representing some of the CMCs or individuals at Manchester) has a bit of a reputation for being good in Consumer Credit cases, but the banks had instructed either four or six barristers from the same Chambers - who were clearly better than him. The rest of the CMC ones came from all over the place, and the others for the banks came from brilliant chambers. No contest really.

 

As you say, Magda, they say we should seek legal advice, but actually they are depending on our legal advice being the local CAB, or maybe a legal aid bod if we qualify, and we would almost certainly know more about Consumer Credit Law than they do.

 

Not good.

 

DD

[diddydicky]

Another QC for the Bank comes from a fabulous Chambers with over 20 QCs in the set.

 

you could'nt get there phone numbers by any chance.

 

cab

 

i think most of us know who they are

[FlyboyAgain]

Absolutely. It's becoming increasingly clear that if you don't have money justice is hard to come by too.

 

DD, as the Yanks say: +1 2 that!

[FlyboyAgain]

With regard to the Manchester test case, it was clear that the barristers acting for the CMC clients were completely outclassed by those instructed by the banks. I googled all of them. Two of the girls from a Northern (Manchester?) chambers had no experience of Consumer Credit on their Chambers' CVs, while one of the girls for the bank was described as a "front runner" or something like that - it meant she was mega-talented. Another QC for the Bank comes from a fabulous Chambers with over 20 QCs in the set. It was hardly surprising the judge went with them.

 

DD,

 

Sorry I've been out of the the loop on CAG for a while. Can you give me a precis on the above?

 

Thx,

Flyboy

[means2anend]

The rate of interest is what aids the borrower in choosing which loan is suitable for him/her in terms of it's cost....One of the major objectives and concerns behind and driving the Consumer Credit Act '74 which was spoken of in length in the Crowther Committee Report of '71 and later implemented into the provisions was 'Truth In Lending'.this was to be brought to the attention of the consumer at point of sale.

 

The Apr's only kick in in relation to REPAYMENTS and the repayments are then affected by late payments and missed payments etc...which then affect your ability to make minimum repayments and APR then goes up.

 

The Rate of interest IS a prescribed term in order for the above principle to be given effect.

 

That is the practical application and significance of the rate of interest.

 

However the date of agreement is imprtant as Consumer Credit (Agreements Amendments) Regulations 2004 says something about APR's IN ADDITION to rate of interest if my memory serves me correctly..but I shall need to refresh it later on both 1983 and 2004...

 

...but neither of the 1983 and 2004 regulations changes the position with respect to 'rates of interest' being a prescribed term....neither to my knowledge unlike signatures in (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regs 1983 has there been any authorisation to omit this statutory prescribed term

 

m2ae:)

Edited March 4, 2010 by means2anend

[MAGDA]

The rate of interest is what aids the borrower in choosing which loan is suitable for him/her in terms of it's cost....One of the major objectives and concerns behind and driving the Consumer Credit Act '74 which was spoken of in length in the Crowther Committee Report of '71 and later implemented into the provisions was 'Truth In Lending'.this was to be brought to the attention of the consumer at point of sale.

 

The Apr's only kick in in relation to REPAYMENTS and the repayments are then affected by late payments and missed payments etc...which then affect your ability to make minimum repayments and APR then goes up.

 

The Rate of interest IS a prescribed term in order for the above principle to be given effect.

 

That is the practical application and significance of the rate of interest.

 

However the date of agreement is imprtant as Consumer Credit (Agreements Amendments) Regulations 2004 says something about APR's IN ADDITION to rate of interest if my memory serves me correctly..but I shall need to refresh it later on both 1983 and 2004...

 

...but neither of the 1983 and 2004 regulations changes the position with respect to 'rates of interest' being a prescribed term....neither to my knowledge unlike signatures in (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regs 1983 has there been any authorisation to omit this statutory prescribed term

 

m2ae:)

 

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

[means2anend]

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

 

Not wishing to appear as on overkill...but if you should require the APR at any given moment in a loan repayment...look to the Total Charges For Credit Regulations 1999 and you will find the Statutory Formulae.

 

It, at first glance looks like an Einstienian Monster but as you break it down and think about it in your spare time you will be able to calculate the APR without any great difficulty...in fact here is...

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft144.pdf

 

A nice comfortable read that will open your eyes as to WHAT should and should NOT be included in CHARGES...

 

Make sure you make time with a nice cuppa and cookies...there are examples at the end that will enable you to understand how these principles do in fact apply in reality.

 

 

Rgds

 

m2ae:)

[MAGDA]

Not wishing to appear as on overkill...but if you should require the APR at any given moment in a loan repayment...look to the Total Charges For Credit Regulations 1999 and you will find the Statutory Formulae.

 

It, at first glance looks like an Einstienian Monster but as you break it down and think about it in your spare time you will be able to calculate the APR without any great difficulty...in fact here is...

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft144.pdf

 

A nice comfortable read that will open your eyes as to WHAT should and should NOT be included in CHARGES...

 

Make sure you make time with a nice cuppa and cookies...there are examples at the end that will enable you to understand how these principles do in fact apply in reality.

 

 

Rgds

 

m2ae:)

 

I like the sound of the cuppa and the cookies:) might give that a go!

 

many thanks, Magda

[means2anend]

When I said that the rate of interest is the starting point for the cost of the loan it is to be assumed that the loan is being taken out without any addons/addins...i.e PPI etc...

 

The APR will THEN include the additional or if you like CUSTOMISED FEATURES of that borrower's particular loan which will include all charges related to and under the main agreement (The Loan).

 

Any addons/addins NOT related to the main agreement (The loan) are purely optional and MUST NOT be included in the TCC and hence the APR because this would NOT be the TRUE/REAL COST of The Loan/Borrowing

 

The above booklet is from the OFT and is not meant to be read in one sitting.However it is (without being disrespectful) in layman's terms hence that is why (ahem!!!) I am reading it.

 

m2ae

[stevehatesbankers]

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

[socleirigh]

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

[MAGDA]

When I said that the rate of interest is the starting point for the cost of the loan it is to be assumed that the loan is being taken out without any addons/addins...i.e PPI etc...

 

The APR will THEN include the additional or if you like CUSTOMISED FEATURES of that borrower's particular loan which will include all charges related to and under the main agreement (The Loan).

 

Any addons/addins NOT related to the main agreement (The loan) are purely optional and MUST NOT be included in the TCC and hence the APR because this would NOT be the TRUE/REAL COST of The Loan/Borrowing

 

The above booklet is from the OFT and is not meant to be read in one sitting.However it is (without being disrespectful) in layman's terms hence that is why (ahem!!!) I am reading it.

 

m2ae

 

Definitely worth a read as soon as I have time to take it all in - many thanks for that.

 

Magda

[vint1954]

Thanks vint, does that apply to loans as well as credit cards? These would be from around 1994 (credit card) 1998 (credit card) and 2000 for a loan.

 

these are actually someone else's agreements and just checking them for the person concerned.

 

Magda

Yes Magda, it would.

[stevehatesbankers]

Hi Socleirigh

 

CMC's were brimming with confidence 6 months ago, however, one or two cases haven't, for whatever the reason, gone the way it was expected. The reason why I used them was I thought they would provide legal representation in court if it came to that and also take away the stigma of having to deal with the banking leeches and the Debt companies but this isnt the case because very few write to the CMC's preferring to try and intimidate us instead. I feel as if many of these law firms have taken too much on board and are unable to deal with the demands so they are looking at an alternative option. The Cag support and advice is just as good if not better and if it means saving on the costs of the CMC solicitors and trying to negotiate a settlement yourself, then we will be better off. Even where companies have confirmed that they dont hold agreements (I have 3 like that) then the solicitors appear to be sitting. Not sure if they will be paid a success fee unless they have to defend a claim

[vint1954]

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

The problem with CMC's is that they saw a method of making a fast buck, without thinking it through and in the early days, they had some success, until the banks dug their heals in.

 

The only way that they can operate, is by taking action against a bank. They used s78, which was only ever intended to provide information to a debtor, to make an agreement uninforcable. This has now cased to be an option and CMC's are not in the business of defending debtors in court, which is the only way of kicking an unenforcable agreement into touch.

[means2anend]

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

Edited March 4, 2010 by means2anend
spelling

[means2anend]

Yes Magda, it would.

 

 

You may also be able to call upon s127(3).....

 

a very powerful ally.