Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Russia’s economy has been cut off from the global financial system - but it is still growing. Why?View the full article
    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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

Early Settlement Charges


jaime
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6288 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

Hi - I have a secured loan against my property and am currently going through a remortgage to consolidate outstanding bits and pieces into one place. However, having asked for an early settlement figure, they are adding on some £5 THOUSAND in charges, etc. - this can't be right!

 

To cap this off, having spoke with an IFA, they have now refused a deed of postponement, essentially knowing that the mortgage company will need to settle before this gets completed.

 

Having had some success already from battling bank charges, I wondered if I had any arguments in my favour on this, as it seems grossly unfair to essentially hold me to ransom purely because my circumstances change.

 

Much appreciated,

 

Jaime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

is the 5k an erc

-----------------------------------------------

Mortgage Express charges- settled in full after issuing claim

 

------------------------------------------------

To view the FAQ'S click here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

To view the PRELIM letter click here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/516-1-data-protection-act.html

To view the Letter Before Action click here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/92-3-letter-before-action.html

To find Registered Address:

http://www.esd.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/esd/search.asp

 

 

If my advise helps click here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/reputation.php?p=366404

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the charge is anything more than it costs them to process it, then it's unlawful, and you can get it back. They can't argue about lost interest, since you are only liable for their losses, and their interest is merely a reduction in profit (as well as charging interest on money you don't owe).

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

A fee of thousands of pounds for cancelling and repaying a loan is not reasonable. Paying off a loan early is a breach of contract - you are breaching the term of the contract that says you will repay the money over a given term. When you settle the loan, the lender will have received the fair present value of the original principal and then some more - hence you have caused them no losses, and all you genuinely owe them is the portion of the principal that remains unpaid. If you were to ask for the fee back at a later date, the onus would be upon the lender, not the borrower, to provide a reasonable figure.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Entirely the wrong reasoning but if the Op wants to pursue a claim then good luck.

 

Are you suggesting that profiting to the tune of £5000 on early settlement might not be unjust enrichment?

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one who likes to talk and have everyone take it as gospel. You are the one making the assertion so you 'put up', if you are able to. That means to provide a legal basis rather that the standard 'it is so because I said it is..' Is there a legal basis for any of the nonsense you have posted....??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a legal basis for any of the nonsense you have posted....??

 

Er, yeah :rolleyes: :

 

- Campbell Discount Co Ltd v Bridge [1962]

- Lord Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron and Coal Co

 

amongst others... as anyone who spends a few hours actually reading up on this site can find out. :razz:

 

And to see how it's done by people who do know the law, hardly nonsense, one would think, seeing the results:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/19501-zoot-halifax-mortgages.html

 

This is assuming OP is talking about an ERC, which he still hasn't confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should actually read and understand the cases you refer to before brandishing them around. In the thread (Zoot case) you refer to, it was resolved by a gesture of good will. The key distinction there is the charges applied with only 2 days remaining on the term. It seems people are being misled into thinking that all the charges can be recovered in full at any stage....its simply not the case. To hold that it does is nothing more than misconceived and negligent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you. Would you like some cheese with your whine?

 

If you're so adamant that we're looking at it the wrong way, clue us in on what you think to be the right way.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

To confirm, I argued the point with the company in question immediately, stating that under common law, their charges are unjust and threatening court action should they not do something. The result was a reduction in charges "due to a miscalculation" by around 40%.......

 

The fee of which I speak is I believe an ERC - there would be no charge if settled after 3 years and I am only 1 year in, so they have charged 6 months "interest". As it stands, I have decided that they are unlikely to do anything further without serious action, so have asked my IFA to proceed with settlement and am 90% certain that I will then try and claim the charges back.

 

As it stands, the unfairness comes from the T's & C's of the contract, which states that this amount will be owed under early settlement. My feeling is that these actual terms are unfair, particularly considering I have repaid a year and got little from that. Any further advice (and less bickering!!) would be appreciated - thanks for the responses thus far.

 

Cheers,

 

JL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since they have reduced it, it may well be that they have removed the "pure" profit element (i.e. beyond reduced interest). I would be tempted to challenge the notion of paying interest on a sum of money that wasn't owed, but would also seek specific legal advice on this. Remember that by settling early, you have not in fact caused the lender any losses at all - the interest covers the effect of inflation.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just be clear as I got a bit confused with all that before. An early redemption charge attached to a mortgage is stated in the contract to be around £7,000.00. We challenged the lender that this in no way reflected losses under the contract and have written to the FSA to determine whether this is an unfair term or not. Is there any other action we could take at present, as the lender referred us to the terms and conditions and the fact we had agreed to them when we signed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Signing a contract agreeing to forfeit your firstborn child does not entitle the creditor to actually take it. If it's fixed in the contract as £7,000, then it is de facto unfair. As we know, it is only fair to pass on any losses that might be sustained. In this case, if the repayment of the remaining principal does not restore it to its fair present value, then the lender is entitled to add extra to do that. For instance, given the current rate of inflation, if the bank lends you £100,000 this year, by next year it is worth £102,500. The bank will charge you a higher rate. If you borrow £100,000 at 6%, then after one year, the total value of the debt is £106,000, which is more than its fair value, hence the bank is not entitled to any further charge beyond its reasonable costs, as it has actually made a profit over the year. Regardless of how the bank has allocated its payments, you don't owe them interest beyond the 1 year for which you have owed them the money. Hence, the amount you need to pay back is £106,000 minus whatever has been paid for the first year. When they refer to early repayment charges, they are usually added on top of this figure, which is already generous enough to them, hence it is a disproportionate penalty for cashing in early.

 

If you haven't yet been made to pay it, you can happily continue, knowing you can get it back should you have to pay it at a later date. Because the charge is unfair, it would be also unfair for them to refuse to accept the full settlement without the charge, but taking legal action at that point might be more difficult, given that your property would still be on the line.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meagain - that's perfect info. I was concerned, as firstly I need this mortgage completed ASAP, plus there is the issue of the house being part-held by them. My theory was that I should state, clearly, that I felt the charges were unfair and have it on record. They then re-evaluated the charge, and I shall now wait until they have been repaid, then re-assess just how much they took. I will then look back over the 12 month period I have had the loan and see just how much has been repaid, then deduct this from the final settlement. That should leave a true settlement value and I should be in a position to reclaim the difference.

 

Let me know if I'm overlooking anything obvious, else I shall be glad to post the results when they happen.

 

Cheers,

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Jaime, just been reading this thread and its all a bit confusing for me!! Could you tell me what the outcome was on your claim, as I had to pay early settlement charges on a secured loan I had when I remortgaged, and it seems extremely unfair. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

POPPY07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi Poppy,

 

I have started a new post on this topic, as I think it could be the next target for the consumer. I am hoping there's some advice already out there, but the only issue is whether the terms of the contract, which states that I will be forced to pay an early settlement charge, is unfair or not.

 

Jaime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Folks, a bit late posting this new thread but it is relevant. I worked for a company who used First Finance as do many others especially double glazing companies.

 

As with any loan where the interest is charged daily, when you come to settle the balance early they look at the remaining term & calculate a percentage of the interest on the whole amount. The way around these extortionate charges is to pay off all but the final installment of the debt & allow this final payment to leave your bank on it's due date. You will only pay that final payment with no extra charges.

 

I was taught this when I attended a finance sales course, but believe I shouldn't have been as these finance companies do not want their customers to know this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may have already circumvented this knowledge, as they wouldn't accept part settlement.

 

I am certain there is illegal activity in here somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a part settlement. You pay the capital less the final last payment. Once this last payment leaves your bank the finance company calculates the interest based on the closing balance only. This obviusly will be your usual monthly installment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...