Agreement Enforceability

[Peterbard]

this is a super thread.

 

what I would like to know is if the Original Creditor can just send blank copies of T & C`s/ Application Form and state "They have fulfilled their legal obligations under S78"??

 

surely this is about enforcement- if they are blank how could they then enforce the debt. Also if the T & C`s are a seperate page, then how could they prove in Court that you signed the App form- which had these supposed T & C`s `attached` to them??

 

I`m just about to write back to BARCLAYS for their failure to provide valid docs with the correct details on- inc prescribed terms- the ones they have sent are a load of tosh!!

 

Nowhere in my docs/ T & C`s does it state for example how much they would charge for exceeding limits- yet they charged this several times on the account-in a letter they sent they stated :-

 

" this is a statment of the T & C`s with us and incorporates any variations to the T & C`s since you entered into the agreement. However the interest rates have been omitted and the fees and charges have been suspended and no longer applicable due to the current status of your account"

 

see my thread:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/120129-hfo-services-new-dca-2.html#post2110580

 

Have you sending for a copy of your docs under the data protection act 1998 there is a template on here somewhere it will cost you a tenner which you send with the request but you can request coies of All document held by them relating to your account.

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI

ALL

Nice to be back in the land of sanity.

 

Peter

[elsinore]

Hello Peter.

Hope you are well.

 

Els

[sequest]

Hi,

Could someone please look at this agreement for me with regard to enforceability. I was mis-sold PPI because, apart from numerous other reasons, the bank employee forgot to mention anything about it. They have just sent me the signed agreement which I have been asking for since October and offered a partial refund of the PPI.

On second page where the second signature is, there is a box which says 'tick here if you want PPI' - the box is not ticked.

 

The third page was sent to me by bank, together with the signed pages, but I don't believe this was available on day I signed.

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d1.jpg

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d2.jpg

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d3.jpg

[oxymoronish]

Peterb .great advice Ty, i am collating some info on here as me being a little slow it seems some of the info is fragmented. i could use some advise from yourself or anyone with any experience on the matter who would like some imput pls feel free to e-mail me at **EDITED**

Please do not quote personal email addresses on an open public forum

Edited April 19, 2009 by car2403
Please do not quote personal email addresses on an open public forum

[questioning]

Peterb .great advice Ty, i am collating some info on here as me being a little slow it seems some of the info is fragmented. i could use some advise from yourself or anyone with any experience on the matter who would like some imput pls feel free to e-mail me at **EDITED**

 

This is a self help forum and all advise is usually given and received through an open thread so that all can benefit from any advice given and any advice can be discussed.

Edited April 19, 2009 by car2403
Removing email address from quoted from previous post

[Viscount Stair]

... and contact by e-mails is not a good idea either, it strikes me.

 

Posting your e-mail in an open forum is a bad idea and sending your e-mail address to someone you do not know is potentially just as bad an idea.

[Peterbard]

Hello Peter.

Hope you are well.

 

Els

 

Hi

All the better for seeing you els.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi,

Could someone please look at this agreement for me with regard to enforceability. I was mis-sold PPI because, apart from numerous other reasons, the bank employee forgot to mention anything about it. They have just sent me the signed agreement which I have been asking for since October and offered a partial refund of the PPI.

On second page where the second signature is, there is a box which says 'tick here if you want PPI' - the box is not ticked.

 

The third page was sent to me by bank, together with the signed pages, but I don't believe this was available on day I signed.

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d1.jpg

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d2.jpg

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d3.jpg

 

 

Hi

 

I need to see the figures in order to calculate the APR and to check that the charges are all in the tcc. You can pm me if you like.

 

Peter

[sequest]

Thanks Peter - will do.

[car2403]

Peterb .great advice Ty, i am collating some info on here as me being a little slow it seems some of the info is fragmented. i could use some advise from yourself or anyone with any experience on the matter who would like some imput pls feel free to e-mail me at **EDITED**

 

Please do not quote personal email addresses on an open public forum

 

Post - and quoting posts - edited to remove personal data.

 

As mentioned, it's never a good idea to;

a) post your email address on an open public forum

b) take advice from unknown strangers by email - at least on the forum others can pitch in if you get the wrong advice

 

Also bear in mind the forum rules when posting, everyone...

 

[Viscount Stair]

Whilst I'm not for one minute suggesting it was why it was being done this time, it occurs to me that an unscrupulous DCA (though in best HIGNFY traditions, such people only exist allegedly) could farm e-mail addresses of unsuspecting CAGgers (not that there should be any such person) for the purposes of harassment.

 

So, another good reason not to be unsuspecting.

[Peterbard]

Hi

I think that since their has been some discussion on this forum about the recent Spurway Judgment and its effect on the enforceability of agreements it is right that it should be discussed on here so here goes.

THE JUDGMENT

Held

1 Including “a term stating the amount of credit involves the amount of “credit” in its technical sense.

2 Although the word credit is not a prescribed term by the regulations the agreement should not leave any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what is the amount of the “credit”

3 It is not sufficient for the agreement to set out what credit in a non technical sense (e.g. the total loan), is being advanced and to provide means of calculating the amount of “credit” in a technical sense.

4In this case the agreement had not included a term stating the account of the credit and accordingly the agreement and the security were unenforceable against the debtor

Firstly this judgement was given in a county court case so does not in itself represent any kind of precedent, having said that I am told that it was a circuit judge of some standing that gave the judgement so it does have some little weight.

The issue that has bee raised in the writings on this is one of badgeing the prescribed terms.

The badge is the name given to the term ie “total credit” as oppose to” loan” or “credit limit”

I have come across this issue before on welcome agreements who usually indicate the total credit with the words amount of loan or something similar. On the cases where i have brought this up it has usually been a secondary issue as the main problem with the agreement was that the fee was in the wrong place so it was never really decided whether the badge itself would be a factor in enforceability.

On reading the judgement I can see nothing that really alters this conception.

To me judgement was given not because the incorrect name was used but because the figure itself was not clearly indicated, there was another figure that it could have been confused with and the figure that you would think was the total credit was not.

The judge said that there must be no confusion in the mind of the lender, well that is true but it was also said that it was not required that a particular form of words was used either.

This may still be of use to us particularly on agreements like the welcome one where total loan and total amount of loan are used and neither are correctly defined, but on an an agreement where there is only one figure that could possibly be the total credit and where that figure is correct I don’t really think it matters within reason what it is called. In the Ocwen case the judges did not saythat the word credit must be used or any other word and not so either in the present case just that the figure itself must be easily identifiable.

I think this must be made clear or we are going to have a lot of people going for unenforceability because the total credit has been called something else and getting into trouble.

Regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi,

Could someone please look at this agreement for me with regard to enforceability. I was mis-sold PPI because, apart from numerous other reasons, the bank employee forgot to mention anything about it. They have just sent me the signed agreement which I have been asking for since October and offered a partial refund of the PPI.

On second page where the second signature is, there is a box which says 'tick here if you want PPI' - the box is not ticked.

 

The third page was sent to me by bank, together with the signed pages, but I don't believe this was available on day I signed.

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d1.jpg

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d2.jpg

 

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr100/sequest1/d3.jpg

 

 

Hi

 

The figures you supplied me with are correct and give an APR of 8.9% this is if the PPI was indeed optional as it is included withihn the total credit, if it where not optional of course it should be in the tota charge for credit and this would make the APR much higher.

 

Peter

[sequest]

Thanks Peter.

[pt2537]

Hi

I think that since their has been some discussion on this forum about the recent Spurway Judgment and its effect on the enforceability of agreements it is right that it should be discussed on here so here goes.

 

First issue, the Judgment isnt recent, it was handed down on the 4th May 2004

THE JUDGMENT

Held

1 Including “a term stating the amount of credit involves the amount of “credit” in its technical sense.

2 Although the word credit is not a prescribed term by the regulations the agreement should not leave any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what is the amount of the “credit”

3 It is not sufficient for the agreement to set out what credit in a non technical sense (e.g. the total loan), is being advanced and to provide means of calculating the amount of “credit” in a technical sense.

4In this case the agreement had not included a term stating the account of the credit and accordingly the agreement and the security were unenforceable against the debtor

 

Firstly this judgement was given in a county court case so does not in itself represent any kind of precedent, having said that I am told that it was a circuit judge of some standing that gave the judgement so it does have some little weight.

 

Actually, having used this case previously, it has a little more than "Little Weight" it was delivered by HHJ Sean Overend, the senior judge on the western circuit

 

The issue that has bee raised in the writings on this is one of badgeing the prescribed terms.

The badge is the name given to the term ie “total credit” as oppose to” loan” or “credit limit”

I have come across this issue before on welcome agreements who usually indicate the total credit with the words amount of loan or something similar. On the cases where i have brought this up it has usually been a secondary issue as the main problem with the agreement was that the fee was in the wrong place so it was never really decided whether the badge itself would be a factor in enforceability.

On reading the judgement I can see nothing that really alters this conception.

 

 

Then you should obtain a copy of Lloyd and Guest Encyclopedia on consumer credit law or speak to professor Paul Dobson the editor of the Consumer Credit law reports

 

To me judgement was given not because the incorrect name was used but because the figure itself was not clearly indicated, there was another figure that it could have been confused with and the figure that you would think was the total credit was not.

The judge said that there must be no confusion in the mind of the lender,

 

No he didn't, it was the debtor whose mind should not question what the credit was

 

well that is true but it was also said that it was not required that a particular form of words was used either.

 

This may still be of use to us particularly on agreements like the welcome one where total loan and total amount of loan are used and neither are correctly defined, but on an an agreement where there is only one figure that could possibly be the total credit and where that figure is correct I don’t really think it matters within reason what it is called.

 

 

Para 24 of that judgment seems to say to the contrary though peter, there cannot be any confusion what the amount of credit is

 

In the Ocwen case the judges did not saythat the word credit must be used or any other word and not so either in the present case just that the figure itself must be easily identifiable.

 

a key omission here is that the judge did go on to say " it may well be" that that requires the use of the word "credit" or "amount of credit" or something similar to identify the term in question

 

I think this must be made clear or we are going to have a lot of people going for unenforceability because the total credit has been called something else and getting into trouble.

Regards

Peter

Interestingly, im sure i have an article written by Bradley Say which says the opposite,i believe Bradley states that the words Cash advance is not sufficient, i will dig it out as clearly, with the greatest respect to you peter, Bradley Say is a Consumer Credit Specialist Barrister deals with cases in the highest courts all the time

[pt2537]

 

 

Here is the article i refer to in the above post

[sequest]

Interesting article Pt. Not sure that I fully understand it all but:

 

Would this mean that -

a) A consolidation loan containing a disputed charge for credit from a previous loan, might argueably be unenforceable

 

b) If the loan, being unsolicited and resulting from lender pressure, included balance of previous loan plus overdraft and interest was front-loaded without the borrowers knowledge , thus putting borrower into worse position than before, the loan could be challenged on these grounds.

[patrickq1]

my question is on the enforcability is part v right when the legal mortgage is signed under a loan agreement in fact it was not a loan but an overdraft for a 3 month period but interferance from the bank made the loan agreement impossible to operate and the bank bounced 3 cheques during the agreement whilst sufficient funds were available...

THIS LEGAL MORTGAGE IS MADE THE (DATE………2…………..) DAY OF(…………OCT……………………….

ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND ……………NINETY……………………… ……………

NAMES…………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………… ……………………………

ADDRESS……………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………… ……………………………….

(THE MORTGAGOR)OF THE ONE PART AND NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC (the bank) of the other part.

1 if the expression “the mortgagor” includes more than one person it shall be construed as refering to all and/or

any one or more of those persons and the obligations of the mortgagor shall be joint and several.

2 (a)the mortgagor as beneficial owner charges by way of legal mortgage all and every interest in or over the property referred to in the schedule hereto which the mortgagor has power at law or in equity so to charge (the mortgaged property)and /or the proceeds of sale thereof as a continuing security to the bank for discharge on demand of:

(i)all present and/or future indebtedness of the mortgagor to the bank on any current and/or other account with interest and bank charges and.

(ii)all other liabilities whatsoever of the mortgagor to the bank present future actual and /or contingent and

(iii)all costs charges and expenses howsoever incurred by the bank in relation to this mortgage and such indebtedness and/or liabilities on a full indemnity basis

and for the payment of interest on the foregoing day by day from demand until full discharge(as well after as before judgement)at the rate payable or deemed to be payable by the mortgagor and as calculated and compounded in such a manner as the bank may from time to time determine .

the costs and expenses referred to herein shall include (for avoidance of doubt)all accounts the bank may from time to time require to compensate it for its internal management and administrative costs and expenses incurred in connection with the enforcement of this mortgage and recovery of the liabilities secured by it .a certificate signed by an officer of the bank as to the amount of such costs and expenses incurred by the bank from time to time shall for all purposes be conclusive evidence against and binding upon the mortgagor.

(b) this security shall not extend or apply to any obligations under a regulated agreement except:

(i)a regulated agreement which embodies this security as required by the consumer credit act 1974(“the act”)

(ii)a regulated agreement to which the provisions of part v* of the act do not apply at the date hereof including (but not by way of limitation)an agreement to overdraw on a current account within the meaning of the act

for the purpose of this clause “regulated agreement” shall have the meaning given by the act but shall also include any agreement which or of which any part would but for this clause become a regulated agreement by virtue of this security and section 82 of the act

*PART V

ENTRY INTO CREDIT OR HIRE AGREEMENTS

Preliminary matters

55. Disclosure of information.

56. Antecedent negotiations.

57. Withdrawal from prospective agreement.

58. Opportunity for withdrawal from prospective land mortgage.

59. Agreement to enter future agreement void.

Making the agreement

60. Form and content of agreements.

61. Signing of agreement.

6

62. Duty to supply copy of unexecuted agreement.

63. Duty to supply copy of executed agreement.

64. Duty to give notice of cancellation rights.

65. Consequences of improper execution.

66. Acceptance of credit-tokens.

Cancellation of certain agreements within

cooling-off period

67. Cancellable agreements.

68. Cooling-off period.

69. Notice of cancellation.

70. Cancellation: recovery of money paid by debtor or hirer.

71. Cancellation: repayment of credit.

72. Cancellation: return of goods.

73. Cancellation: goods given in part exchange.

Exclusion of certain agreements from Part V

74. Exclusion of certain agreements from Part V.

 

©if the mortgagor is a company which has appropriate capacity (a company)the mortgagor also charges by way of floating security all movable plant machinery implements utensils furniture and equipment now and from time to time placed on or used in or about the mortgaged property with the discharge on demand of all moneys costs and interest as aforesaid and the expression the “mortgaged property” shall be construed accordingly.

(3)the mortgagor will keep the mortgaged property in a good state of repair and condition and will keep it insured against such risks and in such office and for such amounts as the bank may from time to time aprove.if the mortgagor fails to maintain or insure the mortgaged property the bank may do so at the expense of the mortgagor without thereby becoming the mortgagee in possesion.

(4)section 103 of the law of property act 1925 shall not apply to this mortgage and the statutory power of the sale ond other powers shall be exercisable at any time after demand

(5)if the mortgagor is not a company and is in the event of the bank taking possession of the mortgaged property the bank is hereby authorised as agent for the mortgagor to remove store sell or otherwise deal with any furniture or goods which the mortgagor shall fail or refuse to remove from the mortgaged property within seven days of being requested to do so by notice from the bank and the bank shall not be liable for any loss or damage occasioned to the mortgagor .the mortgagor shall indemnify the bank against all expenses incurred by the bank in relation to such furniture or goods and the bank shall account to the mortgagor for the proceeds of any such sale after deducting any such expenses.

(6) the statutory powers of leasing or of accepting surrenders of leases conferred on mortgages shall not be exercised by the mortgagor nor shall the mortgagor part with possession of the mortgage property or any part thereof nor confer upon any person firm or company or body whatsoever any licence right or interest to occupy the mortgaged property or any part thereof without consent in writing of the bank but the bank may grant or accept surrenders of leases without restriction.

(7) at any time after the power of sale has become exercisable the bank or any receiver appointed hereunder may enter and manage the mortgaged property or any part thereof and provide such services and carry out such repairs and works of improvement reconstruction addition or completion (including the provision of plant equipment and furnishings)as deemed expedient .all expenditure so incurred shall be immediately repayable by the mortgagor with interest at the rate aforesaid and shall be liability

( if the bank receives or is deemed to be effected by notice wether actual or constructive of any subsequent charge or other interest affecting any part of the mortgaged property and /or the proceeds of sale thereof the bank may open a new account or accounts with any person for whose liabilities this mortgage is available as security .if the bank does not open a new account it shall nevertheless be treated as if it had done so at the time when it received or was deemed to have received notice and as from that time all payments made to the bank shall be credited or be treated as having been credited to the new account and shall not operate to reduce the amount for which this mortgage is security.

(9) in case the mortgagor shall have more than one account with the bank it shall be lawful for the bank at any time and without any prior notice forthwith to transfer all or any part of any balance standing to the credit of any such account to any other account which may be in debit but the bank shall notify the mortgagor of the transfer having been made.

(10) none of the persons included in the expressions ”the mortgagor” shall as against the bank be entitled to any of the rights or remedies legal or equitable of a surety as regards the indebtedness or liabilities of any of the other persons included in the expression “the mortgagor”.

(11) a demand or notice hereunder shall be in writing signed by an officer or agent of the bank and may be served on the mortgagor either by hand or by posting the case of a company service by hand may be made either by delivering the same to any officer of the company at any place or leaving the same addressed to the company at its registered office or a place of business last known to the bank .a demand or notice by post may be addressed to the mortgagor at the registered office or address or place of business last known to the bank and shall be effective notwithstanding it be returned undelivered and notwithstanding the death of the mortgagor.

(12) if the mortgagor is a company the mortgagor certifies that this mortgage does not contravene any of the provisions of the company memorandum and articles of association and has been executed in accordance herewith.

(13)this mortgage shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of england in witness whereof this deed has been executed by the mortgagor the day and year first before written.

the schedule

registered land hm land registry charge of whole

(county and district

(or london borough)

title number :

property

unregistered land

the ….free… hold property known as xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

subject to a mortgage dated txxxxxxxxxxxxx1982 between xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx and building society

 

 

*in the case of a second mortgage of unregistered land insert here “subject to a mortgage dated

between……………………………………………… ………….and……………………………… …………… ………………………..

(and delete the words and comprimised in the following documents”)

 

 

 

 

 

the common seal of

was }

hereunto affixed in the presence of

director

secretary

executed as a deed by the mortgagor

signature………………………………………. director

name in full……………………………………

signature………………………………………. .secretary

name in full……………………………………………..

signed and sealed and delivered

by the above named }

signature…………………………xxxxx

in the presence of

signature of witness xxxxxxxxxxx

name in full….xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

address………………………………….

………………………………………………

occupation. bank manager

signed and sealed and delivered }

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

in the presence of sig of witness c xxxxxxx

occupation bank manager

[Peterbard]

Originally Posted by peterbard

Hi

I think that since their has been some discussion on this forum about the recent Spurway Judgment and its effect on the enforceability of agreements it is right that it should be discussed on here so here goes.

 

First issue, the Judgment isnt recent, it was handed down on the 4th May 2004

 

When you get to my age 2004 is recent

 

THE JUDGMENT

Held

1 Including “a term stating the amount of credit involves the amount of “credit” in its technical sense.

2 Although the word credit is not a prescribed term by the regulations the agreement should not leave any confusion in the mind of the lay reader as to what is the amount of the “credit”

3 It is not sufficient for the agreement to set out what credit in a non technical sense (e.g. the total loan), is being advanced and to provide means of calculating the amount of “credit” in a technical sense.

4In this case the agreement had not included a term stating the account of the credit and accordingly the agreement and the security were unenforceable against the debtor

 

Firstly this judgement was given in a county court case so does not in itself represent any kind of precedent, having said that I am told that it was a circuit judge of some standing that gave the judgement so it does have some little weight.

 

Actually, having used this case previously, it has a little more than "Little Weight" it was delivered by HHJ Sean Overend, the senior judge on the western circuit

 

Western curcuit ,curcuit judge just what i said still just in a county court. No precedent

 

The issue that has bee raised in the writings on this is one of badgeing the prescribed terms.

The badge is the name given to the term ie “total credit” as oppose to” loan” or “credit limit”

I have come across this issue before on welcome agreements who usually indicate the total credit with the words amount of loan or something similar. On the cases where i have brought this up it has usually been a secondary issue as the main problem with the agreement was that the fee was in the wrong place so it was never really decided whether the badge itself would be a factor in enforceability.

On reading the judgement I can see nothing that really alters this conception.

 

 

Then you should obtain a copy of Lloyd and Guest Encyclopedia on consumer credit law or speak to professor Paul Dobson the editor of the Consumer Credit law reports

 

Don't need to read the regs myself years ago and understand what they mean.

To me judgement was given not because the incorrect name was used but because the figure itself was not clearly indicated, there was another figure that it could have been confused with and the figure that you would think was the total credit was not.

The judge said that there must be no confusion in the mind of the lender,

 

No he didn't, it was the debtor whose mind should not question what the credit was

 

Hang isnt the debtor the same as the lender doesn't this say the same thing i did?

 

well that is true but it was also said that it was not required that a particular form of words was used either.

 

This may still be of use to us particularly on agreements like the welcome one where total loan and total amount of loan are used and neither are correctly defined, but on an an agreement where there is only one figure that could possibly be the total credit and where that figure is correct I don’t really think it matters within reason what it is called.

 

 

Para 24 of that judgment seems to say to the contrary though peter, there cannot be any confusion what the amount of credit is

 

Yes the amount of credit having that problem with comprehention again?

 

In the Ocwen case the judges did not saythat the word credit must be used or any other word and not so either in the present case just that the figure itself must be easily identifiable.

 

a key omission here is that the judge did go on to say " it may well be" that that requires the use of the word "credit" or "amount of credit" or something similar to identify the term in question

 

He also said that the tem credit need not be used you are missing the whole point by a country mile

 

I think this must be made clear or we are going to have a lot of people going for unenforceability because the total credit has been called something else and getting into trouble.

 

Thanks for making my points again please every one think this out for your selves i will supply the evedence if you dont have it dont take anyones word for it not even mine.

 

 

Regards

Peter

Edited April 19, 2009 by Dodgeball

[Peterbard]

 

 

Here is the article i refer to in the above post

 

Hi

Not sure why you posted this Paul it is very intersting though and fully supports my argument.

Court says doesnt matter what the credit is called as long as it is identifiable.

Notice they call the wilson case recent must be even older than me.

Very nice

 

Regards Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi just to reiterat

 

The only real method of challenging tan agreement if you are after making it unenforceable is on the grounds that the prescribed terms are incorrectly stated or missing in the sencse that you can prove them to be so on a pocket calculator.

As in PTs article above the PPI is in the credit instead of the total charge for credit or the fee is in the wrong place.

It really doesnt matter whatt they call the credit it never has no case ever said it will all they have said is that the figure must be clearly identifyable

Dont for gods sake stop paying your credit card because they have spelt the word credit with a z it is ludicrous.

 

Peter

[pt2537]

Hi

Not sure why you posted this Paul it is very intersting though and fully supports my argument.

Court says doesnt matter what the credit is called as long as it is identifiable.

Notice they call the wilson case recent must be even older than me.

Very nice

 

Regards Peter

if that supports your view peter then im Saddam Hussein,

 

I cannot see how you can say it supports your view, i just cant, the coloum on page two in the left had side clearly says there is signicficant counsels opinion, no? i have a drafted opinion from one of the leaders in consumer credit law and he states much the same as what that article says, in conference he even went as far as to say " if a lender uses a word to denote credit that is not clealry identifiable that it does indeed mean credit, then the agremeent is without further question left unenforceable"

 

when i asked if the words on an Egg agreement would be acceptable given the facts of the case, i was told that the agreement would not be enforceable in the opinion of counsel as the words approved limit, in conjuinction with the paragraph heading of "Limit" would not make it clear to the lay person that it indeed means CREDIT limit not the limit of how many purchases you can m,ake or how many times you can withdraw money

 

i tend to agree with that reasoning not least because the guy who made it i have the greatest of respect for and that he has represented people in the CoA and Lords so i tend to think he may just know what hes talking about

[pt2537]

peter, let me ask you a question,

 

If the lender says "We will tell you what your approved limit is" would that be sufficient to identify that it means Credit limit?

[pt2537]

or if it said " we will tell you the number of purchases and withdrawals you can make" would that comply

 

where do we draw the line?

 

Return to the term itself

 

3. Agreements for running-account credit.

 

A term stating the credit limit or the manner in

which it will be determined or that there is no

credit limit.

 

every where you look the words are Credit Limit, that is what every part of the regulations and indeed the act itself refers to the word credit not any other permutation