Backdoor Hoist CCJ - old BPF car Finance - set aside

[royalblue1878]

Hi,

 

I am having problems paying bills due to lack of work and have agreed temporary monthly payments with several CC companies including to my surprise after reading the forum MBNA.

 

The only real pain has been Barclays Partner Finance who will not accept my offer for a token payment and have pressed me to pay more.

They have received an income and expenditure report compiled with help from the CCCS but still ask for what I cannot afford.

 

The loan was for a car which has since been sold and a cheaper one aquired to reduce costs and enable me to work.

 

The calls with this company have been quite distressing after the first person I spoke to said that they would accept an offer of £5.

I wrote another letter to offer this amount which was refused again.

 

I tried to pay a token amount over the phone and was put through to collections who did everything they could do squeeze more out of me, constantly threatening debt collection and legal action, obviously this didn't help them as I don't have it.

 

The people at Barclays do not listen,

they talk over you constantly and are extremely rude,

which I did expect , which I presume is their goal.

 

The last thing they said to me after reluctantly processing my £5 payment was to tell me that they will be fast tracking the account for collection.

Amongst other things said to scare me was that I should consult a lawyer and disregard the CCCS.

 

I have paid a token amount for the last 2 months and have no details of any charges they have recently made to the account.

 

At a court case what is the likely outcome?

Surely they can only order me to pay what I can afford is that correct?

 

If that is the case then they will end up with £1 a month, surely they know this and why would they bother?

Or is all this hard talk designed to scare me into paying them?

 

I don't think I can avoid a court date just need to know what to expect.

 

thanks in advance and apologise if the post is too long for you!

 

Royal.

[slick132]

Hi RB,

 

Could you get CCCS to write on your behalf confirming you are only able to offer the token payments because of your current situation. This may carry more weight than you speaking to them on the phone, which normally gets you nowhere except stressed.

 

Keep up the token payments - only time will tell if they are prepared to take this to court.

 

And don't be worried about this - the court is unlikely to order you to pay what you honestly cannot afford.

 

Don't discuss this by phone any more if they call you. Tell them you'll only communicate in writing, then hang up.

 

If they are calling you frequently, keep a log of time and dates of every call in case you need to make a phone harassment complaint.

[royalblue1878]

Hi Slick,

 

Thanks for that, I will talk to CCCS and see if they can do that.

 

I was doing ok until I spoke to the two Barclays people yesterday, the tactics they use I think are really dangerous, especially when used against people who are lacking support from either family or forums.

Luckily I have both so can recover fairly easily from a day or two of feeling bad.

 

Thanks again, I will post any developments from BPF.

 

Royal.

[royalblue1878]

Latest from Barclays Partner Finance is that they will accept a payment of £39 minimum for twelve months without any charges.

I have been told to offer £1 by the CCCS which they have refused.

They will now send me letters every 10 or 20 days at a cost of £22.00 per letter until I pay up.

 

Are these charges legal and could I charge them £22 every time they call me?

 

Also one of their operators suggested I sell my car to pay the loan,

I believe this is against OFT regs so is it worth a complaint?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Royal.

[slick132]

Hi RB,

 

I take it CCCS were not able to write on your behalf offering the token pay'ts. If you can't afford the £39, continue to pay what you can.

 

The £22 charges for their letters are not enforceable, but you can't charge them re the phone calls either.

 

I know you use the car for work, but I don't think they've breached any rules suggesting you sell it to clear the loan.

 

Have you sent BPF a CCA request to see if they have an enforceable credit agreement. Use Letter N from here and enclose a £1 postal order - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html

[royalblue1878]

Thanks slick,

 

The CCCS couldn't act on my behalf unless they were negotiating a DMP or IVA. As I am in negative equity they can only advise.

 

The next thing I will do is send them a CCA request as you suggest, just in case!

 

Thanks again,

 

Royal.

[royalblue1878]

Hi,

 

I am currently in a position with Barclays Partner Finance where I have been advised to offer a token payment, as with my other Barclays accounts they have refused and carry on adding charges and interest.

 

This BPF loan was for a car.

When being sold the loan by the garage I seem to remember them telling me it would be HP, they even criticised a loan I had for a previous car as it was not HP!

 

The garage dealt with a company called European Finance.

I am now dealing with Barclays Partner Finance which also was known as Clydesdale.

 

Looking through my reciepts I find that my receipt for the car was made out as sold to European Finance ltd and delivered to me.

This would tell me that it was HP and not an unsecured loan.

(Although terms and condition say otherwise)

 

When getting advice for the debt problems I was told to carry on paying for the car, when another creditor did a check they phoned to tell me that this was not an HP loan and should be treated as non priority also, hence the token payment to BPF.

 

Now, is an HP loan better for the consumer than an unsecured loan or vice versa?

Also does anyone think this may be a case of miss selling a loan?

Why would they put the finance house as the owner on the receipt if it was supposed to be an unsecured loan?

 

Thanks in advance for reading and any advice!

 

Royalblue.

[royalblue1878]

Just an update. Now with Mercers (Barclays)

 

Mercers still calling but now maybe once a fortnight rather than every day.

 

Funny thing is, I am never in!

 

Have not CCA'd them yet as it appears they ignore those at will. I will wait for them to make a move and then CPR them.

[slick132]

Hi RB,

 

Before involving yourself with the CPR route, users have had success recently in getting their credit agreement after FOS intervention.

 

CCA request; Account in dispute letter; BC refuse to supply agreement; complaint to FOS; BC produce their credit agreement or whatever they hold.

 

See here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/231901-tony3x-barclaycard.html

 

[royalblue1878]

Hi Slick,

 

Thanks, I shall have a look and give it a go.

[royalblue1878]

I forgot to post this back in June.

 

I received an offer of a new loan contract at a reduced Apr. It was all filled in and ready to go...I just needed to sign it!

 

Now having told them I have no work and can only afford a pound, wouldn't this come under some sort of bad lending law?

'We know you have no money but sign this and we can take you to court!'

 

This led me to believe that they have no valid agreement.

I haven't followed it up yet as I was trying to sort out my problems with MBNA, which are now nearly over...so onwards.

 

Royal.

[slick132]

You could report this to the OFT and/or Trading Standards but they won't investigate it on a personal level. Waste of time IMHO as Barclays are not going to be affected in any way.

 

I'm sure you're right - they offer a better rate to get you to sign a new agreement because they have no valid agreement for the old one.

 

Or are we being too cynical.

[royalblue1878]

Or are we being too cynical.

 

Hope not!

[royalblue1878]

CCA request sent.

 

There is now a 50p fee for a £1 postal order!

[slick132]

Yes, but it could be the best £1.50 you ever invested.

 

[royalblue1878]

Hi,

 

Nothing from Mercers yet re: CCA request.

(No phone calls either)

 

They have had well over 14 days.

 

Should I now be sending them the 'Failure to provide a copy of the agreement within the prescribed timescale' letter ?

 

Cheers.

[slick132]

Send a reminder enclosing a copy of the first letter.

 

[royalblue1878]

Hi,

 

Received a copy of agreement and terms of which you can see below.

 

Ok This is 2007 so not sure what the changes in 2006 mean.

 

The Agreement below is a good scan but as you can see is ineligible, would this be from microfiche and could it be improved?

 

Terms, sent on a separate sheet with section 4.3 missing from the terms I was originally given. (4,3 deals with changing payment date) would this be relevant for any reason?

Good quality copy but not taken from the originals originally sent to me.

 

Invoice This may be either here nor there but when I bought this car I was told that the previous agreement I had with another finance company was not as good as the hp loan they could provide. (this was said when I told them I was going to extend the loan repayments form a previous loan on the car I was part exing)

 

I took them to their word and recieved an invoice saying the car was sold to a finance company as any hp loan would.

 

It turns out that this was an unsecured loan at a higher interest rate than stated. Although the supplied T&C would have explained this to me I did not read them all the way through.(Too trusting and excited to get the car!)

 

All I have is my memory of the converstaion with the salesman and the invoice that would seem to back it up. (my memory)

 

Any ideas on the agreement and the dodgy sales techniques would be welcome.

 

Thanks,

 

Royal.

 

[slick132]

Hi RB,

 

The document is just legible although I believe the Reg'ns say it should be easily legible, which it is not.

 

It appears to contain the necessary Prescribed Terms in the main agreement as required.

 

Your comment about the high interest rate is probably irrelevant. I see the rate is on the main agreement. I can't quite make it out - is it 55% ?

[royalblue1878]

Hi,

 

No it wasn't 55%. Looking at it closely in hand it looks like it could be 11% but I couldn't be sure. I guess that makes it ineligible if I cant read it!

 

Would this have been taken from a michrofiche and could they improve it?

 

I think I will just send a nice letter asking them to send one I can read clearly.

 

Also, Do you have any pointers or ideas about the mis-selling part because the difference between hp and unsecured is bugging me. It was actually MBNA who told me it was unsecured when they were doing a check on my other creditors.

 

Thanks.

[slick132]

Hi RB,

 

Yes, certainly the document is not clearly legible as required by the CCA 1974 so you should write back pointing out that this is a requirement with which they must comply, and would they therefore send you a legible copy.

 

I don't think you can argue about the interest rate. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have got carried away about the "new motor".

[royalblue1878]

Hi Slick,

 

Sent a letter today asking for a nice clear copy I can read!

 

I wasn't really bothered about the interest rate as such I think I am more peeved at the car salesman who dissed my current loan with black hearse (who had offered to extend it) in favour of a new one that he would earn commission on! and in doing so lied about it! I sort of know that is a long shot though!

 

Next car I get will be cash though for obvious reasons!

 

Cheers.

[royalblue1878]

Hi Slick

 

Is section 61 (1) © the part of the act that covers illegible documents?

 

Cheers.

[slick132]

I'd have to look it up but, as you've got your copy of the CCA open, can you check it out.

 

[royalblue1878]

This is what it says:

 

61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms

and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed

manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner,

and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms,

and

© the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in

such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

 

I am not sure though as it says: 'when presented or sent to the debtor for signature'

 

presumably that would mean a legible copy would need to be supplied in court too?

Edited April 5, 2010 by royalblue1878