Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful

[FlyboyAgain]

That one's reminded me of a loan I had completely forgotten about. The link below is a scan of a copy agreement for a loan taken out in 2003. It is tied to the mortgage. It's all we have (other than the security document) regarding the loan - ie no T&Cs - and wonder if forumites can have a gander at it whilst i go on another search.

 

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/kakkadoo/Scans/TiedLoan1014.jpg

[Scouserlad]

Hi

 

Here is a statment that they sent me with my CCA request

 

Thanks

John

[FlyboyAgain]

Well are you paying one instalment as opposed to two? IE, is the PPI inclusive of that or separate?

[Scouserlad]

i think it was inclusive

[N.P]

I beleive they ARE allowed to charge interest on the PPI.

 

They are not allowed to charge interest on Service charges - IE. say they charged you an extra £100 for processing the paperwork. They are not allowed to charge interest on that. They must, show the amount of the Loan, then add interest, then add the Service charges (if any) on to the end.

 

They can of course spread the £100 over the term of the Loan, providing they don`t add interest on.

 

The PPI, is also classed as Credit, as you are effectively borrowing it, then paying it back over the term of the Loan.

 

Sorry to put a dampner on things, but I`d be more than happy for someone to correct me if I`m wrong.

 

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974

section 9. Meaning of credit.

(1) In this Act “credit ” includes a cash loan, and any other form of financial accommodation.

(2) Where credit is provided otherwise than in sterling it shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as provided in sterling of an equivalent amount.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the person by whom goods are bailed or (in Scotland) hired to an individual under a hire-purchase agreement shall be taken to provide him with fixed-sum credit to finance the transaction of an amount equal to the total price of the goods less the aggregate of the deposit (if any) and the total charge for credit.

(4) For the purposes of this Act, an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

[N.P]

Perhaps you should also start your own thread on this TSB Loan, then paste a Link up here so we can see how your doing with it.

[Redfish]

NP you may well be right there, let's see what others say.

[FlyboyAgain]

I'm not so sure . There's a ruling on it:-

 

London North Securities Ltd v Mr

 

But then I'm not an expert.

[N.P]

I'm not so sure . There's a ruling on it:-

 

London North Securities Ltd v Mr

 

But then I'm not an expert.

 

 

 

That`s the same as what I posted.

 

They CAN add interest to the PPI.

 

Can someone change the size of that blummin scan? I`m getting sick of all this scrolling up/down/left and right

[Dipply75]

That one's reminded me of a loan I had completely forgotten about. The link below is a scan of a copy agreement for a loan taken out in 2003. It is tied to the mortgage. It's all we have (other than the security document) regarding the loan - ie no T&Cs - and wonder if forumites can have a gander at it whilst i go on another search.

 

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/kakkadoo/Scans/TiedLoan1014.jpg

 

Thought I would highlight this one again, any of the clever caggers out there able to take a look....surely this cannot be enforceable, there seems to be SO much missing on it!

 

[Scouserlad]

Hi

 

Is my own thread link if somone can give me a plain english decsion

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/210240-john-lloyds-tsb.html

 

Thanks

John

[N.P]

Hi

 

Is my own thread link if somone can give me a plain english decsion

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/210240-john-lloyds-tsb.html

 

Thanks

John

 

 

 

You need to re-scan these at a larger size, these are unreadable.

[Scouserlad]

Hi

 

I have uploaded new ones and updated it on the forum

 

John

[FlyboyAgain]

That`s the same as what I posted.

 

They CAN add interest to the PPI.

 

Can someone change the size of that blummin scan? I`m getting sick of all this scrolling up/down/left and right

 

You mean they can because they can get away with it?

 

If you look at the link to my scans in my thread below, the calculations are wrong. If they add the PPI into the loan and charge interest on the whole shebang, then the total amount of credit offered is incorrect! That is what the judge mentioned in London North Securities Ltd v Mr.

 

My thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/210160-ppi-amalgamated-into-loan.html#post2300718

 

Thanks, Dipply, for bumping my link again.

Edited July 20, 2009 by FlyboyAgain
Review and additions

[FlyboyAgain]

Anyway, Scouser Lad's agreement doesn't add up right, either. His seems to be a single premium policy. Did they advise you of that at the time, SL? They've lumped it together.

 

Irrespective of what the Appeals court ruled in Northern Sec Ltd, if the PPI is added into the total loan term and interst applied, then the total cost of the loan, as set out in the agreement, is not going to add up. oR am I missing something?

[Scouserlad]

Hi

 

It was a lump ppi that was added to the account

[Foo Fighter]

Can anyone help me as I've writtent to MBNA requesting a copy of my credit agreement on the 22nd June 09, but have not received a reply. I would like to know how to word the next letter demanding a response.

 

I had two credit cards with MBNA which was passed on to Direct Legal and 1st Credit. I was not able to pay because I had major spinal surgery.

I took out the credit cards between 1995-1998 and I have been paying 1st Credit and Direct Legal since 2001.

[FlyboyAgain]

Try this:-

DCA: Non-Compliance of CCA Request - Consumer Wiki

 

Note, though, that the statement at the top that says 'After a further 30 calendar days they are committting a summary criminal offence.' is incrorrect as it was repealled in 2007.

 

They may still send you the copies outwith the time span. You will find that this is a game of cat amd mouse.

[N.P]

You mean they can because they can get away with it?

 

If you look at the link to my scans in my thread below, the calculations are wrong. If they add the PPI into the loan and charge interest on the whole shebang, then the total amount of credit offered is incorrect! That is what the judge mentioned in London North Securities Ltd v Mr.

 

My thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/210160-ppi-amalgamated-into-loan.html#post2300718

 

Thanks, Dipply, for bumping my link again.

 

 

Have you read this Link? The Judge was not referring to PPI in this case. He refer`s to the Charge. IE, the cost of Credit.

 

They can add interest to PPI because you are effectivelly borrowing the money to pay it.

[Redfish]

You mean they can because they can get away with it?

 

If you look at the link to my scans in my thread below, the calculations are wrong. If they add the PPI into the loan and charge interest on the whole shebang, then the total amount of credit offered is incorrect! That is what the judge mentioned in London North Securities Ltd v Mr.

 

My thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/210160-ppi-amalgamated-into-loan.html#post2300718

 

Thanks, Dipply, for bumping my link again.

 

I'm no expert, but maybe the Meadows case is judged that way because the PPI was not optional??? It could be that if it is not optional it becomes a charge for credit, and therefore should not incur interest. There seems to be an issue at stake in the Meadows judgement about whether it was optional or not.

 

Anyone care to comment?

[N.P]

I'm no expert, but maybe the Meadows case is judged that way because the PPI was not optional??? It could be that if it is not optional it becomes a charge for credit, and therefore should not incur interest. There seems to be an issue at stake in the Meadows judgement about whether it was optional or not.

 

Anyone care to comment?

 

 

That looks like the case, Redfish.

 

The PPI was NOT an option in this case. It was simply `added` to make a profit.

 

Let`s call it `extortionate profiteering`, shall we?

 

Also, they weren`t informed that they could have purchased the Insurance elsewhere, probably at a much cheaper rate.

[FlyboyAgain]

Have you read this Link? The Judge was not referring to PPI in this case. He refer`s to the Charge. IE, the cost of Credit.

 

They can add interest to PPI because you are effectivelly borrowing the money to pay it.

 

'The judge declared that the agreement was unenforceable under Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because the mortgage arrears and insurance policy were within the total charge for credit'

 

Yes, he is. Or am I being thick? The fact that the initial court ruled on it must mean that it is contentious to lump in the PPI within the full term of the loan.

 

[N.P]

Morning,

 

I`m not saying anyone is thick. Maybe what they had was a Section 18 Multiple Agreement and should have laid everything out as required, BUT just bundle everything into one sum.

 

That would then mean the agreement would be lacking in some prescribed Terms, and therefore would be rendered unenforceable under Section 127.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

 

N.P

[FlyboyAgain]

That's ok; no offence taken, because I can be thick, sometimes.

 

Since we are early birds, could you cast your eye over my PPI link? I think there is something untowards in the way it's set out too.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/210160-ppi-amalgamated-into-loan.html#post2300718

Edited July 21, 2009 by FlyboyAgain

[crazzycat]

Thanks for this thread i am learning more and more from it:cool:

______________

Searching for Attorneys Addresses

Edited July 24, 2009 by crazzycat