Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi,   Someone who isn't me (SWIM) bought a parking ticket for a car park whilst on holiday paid the correct fee input their car reg went to the shops and then left in their vehicle within the required timeframe. The car park operates ANPR and a few weeks later SWIM received a PCN despite having followed all the rules of the car park. The parking company is saying that they have no record of a payment for SWIMs car. SWIM wrote to the parking company explaining that they paid and followed all the rules of the car park however the parking company replied with a standard template letter and are now adding more to their PCN and threatening court action. Unfortunately before receiving the PCN SWIMs partner threw the parking ticket away as part of cleaning out the car after the holiday.     The parking company has pictures of SWIMs car entering and leaving the car park but is saying that no number plate was entered into their machine. This is not correct the number plate was definitely inputted and the fee paid in cash. The car park is in a shocking state of disrepair and there have been several cases of the company issuing PCNs due to their own faulty equipment.     The parking company have taken people to court before and lost. However, the defendants in those cases had their tickets as proof of payment. If SWIM is taken to court their argument would be that the private parking company's (PPC) equipment must have been faulty and that the only evidence the PPC has is the car driving into and out of the carpark.  They have no real evidence of no payment. In fact CCTV footage would show a payment has been made, furthermore there were no other cars in the nearly derelict car park so if a payment was registered on the machine but not a number plate that would have to be SWIMs.    Dose SWIM no longer having a ticket ruin their chance of winning if this ends up in court? SWIM is prepared to take it to court if needed.   Are there any similar cases of people winning in court despite no longer having their parking ticket?   
    • Social services need to be given on training on how to provide direct payments! 
    • I have written to them to advise of income change and employment change .. they haven't even acknowledged the income change ..they just stated I have advised about how I'm paying cmi but not addressed how I'm paying the arrears ..I have a court order in palace to pay the cmi + 200 extra they know this . However they still threatening me with eviction . And demanding more income and expenditure so I will send that in to them and see where we go as they will probably demand more again .as the income is now higher . But they are only having the extra £200 as inline with the court order . Regards Markez  
    • do you not still have your ID card etc etc. if its whom I think it is and you are thinking of switching 'sides' shall we say .....you are not alone!!   dx
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 3 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
HSBCandMe

Defaulted HBOS loan from 2004 sold to Cabot

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

 

Was this 

APR is 9.9, near enough. Regulations say no more than .1% but it is only a minor beach, no court would bother over it. (deminimis.

 

APR is important because it prevents lenders from hiding additional costs, a provided a true representation of the borrowing / allows fair comparisons between lenders when took out loan.

 

Mis-sell? 

 
de minimis errors of 0.1% can be disregarded. 
 

Consumer Credit Law and Practice para 13.64 states as follows: 

 

“Anything more than a de minimis misstatement will make the default notice invalid... It also seems to follow that a substantial error in stating any of the other items listed will be fatal.”

 

43 In the same textbook, at para 5.168: 

Unless the error or omission is minor, there is a breach of the Regulations. It must follow that the statement is invalid, and thus of no effect for all purposes”.

 

The question is: 

 

1. Is the APR out by 0.3 / 0.4%?  CCA states 9.5% but I make it 9.8% (?)

 

2. discrepancy of 0.1% should in our view be disregarded on the basis of the de minimis principle. Does this make the CCA unenforceable? 

 

3. If it does, can I use 127(3) to argue its irredeemably unenforceable?  However, the only prescribed term is the total amount of credit not interest, so I don’t think 127(3) is relevant here. 

 

4. Am I better off taking a dispute to the FCA instead? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see any dispute to take.

 

As I said APR is not a prescribed term, although important. If you mentioned it as part of action it would render the agreement unenforceable under section 65, which means that the court has to issue an enforcement order under section 127, but such an order would not be prohibited by section 123(7).

 

The court would examine the amount of harm done to the debtor by the error, the sanction imposed would reflect this, from experience, there would be no sanction and no benefit to you.

 

You could do a little fishing and ask the OC to explain the discrepancy, never know may turn something useful up.

  • Thanks 1

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of being hated even more. I also wrote a piece about APR in 2009, it may be useful if you want to understand the inns and outs, this was also copied by various posters onto many forums.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks. Not looking too good then? 

 

But, do you think they preloaded the interest up front?  I cannot see how this agreement differs so very much from the masterloan one?  Or am I missing something obvious? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats very helpful, thank you. Well written and clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem earlier was in the restructure for the second loan, with the method they used and information they had. it would have been impossible to create an accurate copy.

For instance, they matched the APR with the old one. This is not possible using only the details they had available.

You can calculate the interest, but the APR contains all other costs of credit, fees. insurance etc. there is no way they can know what was in the missing agreement.

  • Thanks 1

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, as always. Useful clarification ref masterloan. 

 

I am hoping I can still do something on the HBOS matter, though, as it seems to me I shouldn’t have been paying out on a loan that included 5 years of interest when I defaulted, just perhaps the capital from then on (as they froze interest on It when it went to collections ).  Let us see what they say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cabot wrote today, saying Wescot have handed collections back to Cabot.  Is this a sign of things hotting up? 

 

They also made an offer of settling for 42% of outstanding debt.  

 

Any views on this and whether, in light of the above comments on the CCA, I should accept? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

typically a discount means there are problems wit the debt

be that paperwork

or the balance

penalty fees , PPI anything like that in it?
 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No ppi. There was the £50 penalty fee and £50 courier fee (attachments, above). Balance, I have argued above, includes preloaded interest (surely?).  

 

In your experience, what should my next steps be? Should I fold, make a counter offer or continue dispute?  In light of the CCA being (prima facie) enforceable? 

Edited by HSBCandMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well £50+int doesnt = 42%

and 42% is a weird figure to offer a discount on.

 

somethings up IMHO.

 

wait and see what they send next

don't forget they've got to send a PAP letter before they try and litigate.

do we know if things like the DN exist?

has HSBC gotten an sar sent yet

  • Thanks 1

PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim is for £7K odd.

The settlement offer is for approx. £3K. 

 

'I THINK' the £4K discount is suspiciously like the amount of interest HBOS preloaded to the credit and (and I never got a rebate). Earlier posts refer. 

Anyway, it looks suspiciously like.

 

Their stoopid £50 charges are just powder added to my ammo, the real issue is the interest. 

 

Also, the APR is way out (above the de minimis).

However, it is not I gather a prescribed term, but does call into question the amount owed under an otherwise valid CCA

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HSBCandMe said:

 

The claim is for £7K odd. The settlement offer is for approx. £3K.  'I THINK' the £4K discount is suspiciously like the amount of interest HBOS preloaded to the credit and (and I never got a rebate). Earlier posts refer.  Anyway, it looks suspiciously like.

 

Their stoopid £50 charges are just powder added to my ammo, the real issue is the interest.  Also, the APR is way out (above the de minimis). However, it is not I gather a prescribed term, but does call into question the amount owed under an otherwise valid CCA

 

 

2

In your defence you could say:

The APR calculated to 99% rather than that indicated in your reconstruction. I remind you that the FCA defines an acceptable margin of error as .1% below the actual value or 1% above, this represents a breach of section 65-127(1) CCA1974.

 

The increased APR also leads me to believe there was another item in the charge for credit, That or the repayment details were incorrect, which would render the agreement unredeemable, not having the original it is impossible to ascertain what was on it..

 

AS well as the other factors I submit that it would be extremely unlikely, and certainly beyond the realms of the evidential test for you to be able to reconstruct a Section 77 compliant copy

 

feel free to alter/ammend substitute/ correct spellimg etc/.

  • Thanks 1

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be as said that one or some of those charges were within the TCC, this would account for the error.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted up the photocopy of the signed CCA earlier. This is not a recon. You took the view, I think, it was enforceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HSBCandMe said:

I posted up the photocopy of the signed CCA earlier. This is not a recon. You took the view, I think, it was enforceable.

Yes and I think I pointed out that the enforceability of the CCA is dependant on more than the document you posted. On its own, the agreement sites all the correct terms and is compliant with section 77.

However, it also has to comply with the agreement(copy) you signed, how can anyone who as not seen that document say one way or the other.

I went on to explain how it would be impossible to calculate the terms on the second agreement from the first as the first did not exist. I seem to be constantly repeating myself, and I do not see you doing anything to move this case forward. 


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you can see it’s the one I signed - it’s a photocopy if it. 

 

Are you confusing this thread with my masterloan thread? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dodgeball said:

However, it also has to comply with the agreement(copy) you signed, how can anyone who as not seen that document say one way or the other.

 

Post #7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi guys. 

 

Cabot wrote today (they usually do for a Friday delivery) and said as follows: 

 

“dear... 

 

“you were provided with:

 

”credit agreement 

“T&cs

”statement of account 

 

“your reference to ss.61 and 127(3) of the CCA is not relevant under a.77. 

 

“We are not the original creditor and are unable to assist with matters relating to pre-purchase conduct. 

 

“As this dispute is in regard to whether the debt is unenforceable, you cannot refer it to the financial ombudsman service. They cannot adjudicate on this determination l, as only the court can. 

 

“In light of the above it is clear we have complied with ss77-79 CCA and you need to contact us to discuss your repayment options on.... etc” 

 

 

 

Edited by HSBCandMe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...