Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
  • 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 4941 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

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

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Poor-Credit Borrower
grammatical
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

:mad:

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

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:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Regards

socleirigh

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by means2anend
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4941 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...