Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful

[FlyboyAgain]

You a DCA, Crazzycat? Not that you'd admit it.

[N.P]

You a DCA, Crazzycat? Not that you'd admit it.

 

 

Heh heh, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll.

 

So, Crazycat, are you going to answer the £1 question? Are you a DCA?

[Scouserlad]

Can anybody give me an update on my thread ?

[Redfish]

'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.

 

 

FlyboyAgain, if I understand right, it is contentious to lump in PPI with the loan and charge interest on it all if the PPI was not optional.

 

I think the point N.P. was making (correct me if I am wrong N.P.) was that in that particular case you mention the insurance could be classified as a 'cost' for the credit because it was not optional. The Act says that you cannot charge interest on something that is a charge (cost) for the credit, even though you are paying that back over a period of time.

 

BUT where the insurance is optional it can't be classified as a cost for the credit, as it would be seen as something you chose to buy with the money you were borrowing. So this would mean that they could charge interest on it.

 

But as N.P. has also noted, in the case for an optional PPI, it should really be laid out as two separate parts in the agreement, each with their own prescribed terms: the main loan as one part being an unrestricted use credit and the PPI as another part being restricted use credit. HOWEVER I think Bradley Say has lost a recent court case based on this multiple agreements issue (dividing an agreement into parts and insisting each part should have its own prescribed terms), so it might be that this bit on PPI being considered to make the agreement a multiple agreement depends on the judge whether they would see it like that.

 

Going back to the issue of the cost for credit, this is why an admin charge is definitely a cost for the credit, not something you can say you had a choice in taking on or not. So if you had an admin charge that was lumped in with the total credit and interest was charged on it then it makes the agreement unenforceable as per the Wilson case.

 

I hope that's what you were saying N.P.??

 

So IF I AM RIGHT, that means on your agreement FlyboyAgain, that particular argument about unenforceability due to the inclusion of PPI in the total amount of credit rests on whether it was optional or not. If it was optional and you opted for it then you wouldn't have a case for unenforceability (on that point). But if you had an admin charge in there which was being lumped in with the rest of the loan and interest was being charged on all of it then it would make the agreement unenforceable.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Redfish

[FlyboyAgain]

The admin charge is lumped in with the loan; it is part of the total repayment. I don't understand why I should have to pay interest on what is, in essence, a one-off fee.

 

How can the PPI be classified as a cost, whether it is optional or not?

 

Reviewing this case with my wife - who has a better memory than I - we had to accept the PPI and have the loan tied to the house, as security. That was a stipulation of the bank at the time.

[N.P]

Yep, that`s what I was saying.

 

In fact, if you had no choice in the so-called PPI, then it could be seen as an actual Charge.

 

Afterall. Insurance could be purchased elsewhere, so it could still be classed as missold.

 

The fact that you did not want/require it, yet it was still forced upon you could then be regarded as an actual Charge under a different name, in order to try and escape any unenforceability issue latter on down the line.

 

 

 

N.P

[N.P]

The fact that the house was laid down as Security is THEIR insurance that you would need to keep up payments, otherwise they could claim it back.

[FlyboyAgain]

It's not jst the mis-selling: it's the PPI being lumped into the loan I don't think is correct. That, and the absence of 'total credit' or can they get away with stating 'Loan'?

[FlyboyAgain]

Y'know I'm not trying to dodge out of my debts, but HBoS did really cruel and uncaring things to my wife and I a few years back and I have longed for my revenge upon them and all that carry-on on with their DCA over the last few years has reignited that desire to get them. That's why I'm doing this. And also to teach them a lesson.

 

So, aside from the calculations issue - which I'll look at again at the week-end - I'm going after them on the admin charge and the mis-selling of the PPI. My concern here is that you seem to not be differntiating between the admin charge for the loan and the PPI, NP. DO you accept they are two totally differnt things?

 

Main thread:-

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

Edited July 22, 2009 by FlyboyAgain
additions

[Redfish]

The admin charge is lumped in with the loan; it is part of the total repayment.

 

Well that's all you need! If that's so, and you are paying interest on it, then your agreement is unenforceable. See First County Trust v Wilson.

 

How can the PPI be classified as a cost, whether it is optional or not?

 

If it's not optional then it means you couldn't have the loan without this 'cost', i.e. it was a cost pretending to be something nice (like insurance), when in fact it was just a plain old cost that wasn't necessary - just feeding the greed of the lender. Insurance should be optional - that is why N.P. says when it isn't optional it can also be pursued under mis-selling.

 

Reviewing this case with my wife - who has a better memory than I - we had to accept the PPI and have the loan tied to the house, as security. That was a stipulation of the bank at the time.

 

If you had to accept the PPI then it was not optional and therefore should not have been lumped in with the loan and charged interest, but even if you find it difficult to prove that, you already have the case with the admin charge being added in so it doesn't matter. Your agreement is unenforceable.

[FlyboyAgain]

The admin charge was the second thing I spotted, which chnaged it from being a PPI issue to non-enforceable. Glad you agree.

 

Second point taken.

 

Third point agreed, wholeheartedly.

 

I suppose s.127, after I get their copies. I won't stop paying the loan nor the PPI. I think I'd have go s.127 after going through the routine off CCAing them and get it to court. Then, I'd go after the PPI, either by recovery or making complaint to the Ombudsman, since it's a pre 2005 agreement.

Edited July 22, 2009 by FlyboyAgain
additions

[N.P]

So, aside from the calculations issue - which I'll look at again at the week-end - I'm going after them on the admin charge and the mis-selling of the PPI. My concern here is that you seem to not be differntiating between the admin charge for the loan and the PPI, NP. DO you accept they are two totally differnt things?

 

 

Hi again Flyboy,

 

Yes, I agree the Charge for the Loan (Admin Fee) and PPI are two different things.

 

But, saying that. It looks as though they have added on the Admin Fee and charged you interest on it, which they are not supposed to. How naughty is that?

 

Also, they appear to have added a second Admin Fee and called it an Insurance Policy, and charged interest on that too. They can charge interest on the Insurance Policy, but it should have been optional to you, and they should have given you they option to check out other insurance products from other companies.

 

The fact they have `added` the PPI without any option as to wether or not you required then makes it a charge for credit, in which case you should not be paying interest on it.

 

Does this make sense?

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

 

N.P

[N.P]

Y'know I'm not trying to dodge out of my debts

 

Of course your not, none of us are, not

 

Who cares? A shady agreement is a shady agreement. It`s irresponsible lending on their part.

 

It was different when they used to bombard us all with Loans and Credit Cards, and hammer us with extortionate charges to make a quick buck for the fart arse at the top in his big house with a big telly on the wall.

 

I say bomb them all, lets go back to the days of pay in hand, instead of in the Bank, only to find half of it gone in charges.

[FlyboyAgain]

NP

 

Many thanks for your help. Please go to my thread for this for now on:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/210160-ppi-amalgamated-into-loan-3.html#post2309979

Edited July 23, 2009 by FlyboyAgain
spelling

[diddydicky]

I am a bit dismayed that the site team allow you to keep taunting posters about their background

 

as i understand some very useful posters have been driven from this site in the past by people questioning their background

 

This is a site for people to remain anonymous if they wish

 

if you believe someone is a troll (as you put it) then accept them as such and guard your posts accordingly but do not start an online "lynch mob"

 

there's an old saying:-

 

keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[N.P]

No offence was meant at all dicky, just joking

 

I don`t beleive there`s a lynch mob of any sort.

[diddydicky]

No offence was meant at all dicky, just joking

 

I don`t beleive there`s a lynch mob of any sort.

 

fair do's

 

i just think that all opinons even if from the "other side" can be useful

[Redfish]

Of course your not, none of us are, not

 

Who cares? A shady agreement is a shady agreement. It`s irresponsible lending on their part.

 

It was different when they used to bombard us all with Loans and Credit Cards, and hammer us with extortionate charges to make a quick buck for the fart arse at the top in his big house with a big telly on the wall.

 

I say bomb them all, lets go back to the days of pay in hand, instead of in the Bank, only to find half of it gone in charges.

 

I'll second that !!!

[FlyboyAgain]

I am a bit dismayed that the site team allow you to keep taunting posters about their background

 

as i understand some very useful posters have been driven from this site in the past by people questioning their background

 

This is a site for people to remain anonymous if they wish

 

if you believe someone is a troll (as you put it) then accept them as such and guard your posts accordingly but do not start an online "lynch mob"

 

there's an old saying:-

 

keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

With respect to yourself, Diddy, was that meant for me? If so, can I state that I don't 'keep taunting posters about their background'. Internet sniping is appalling behaviour but in light of the vindictivness demonstrated on the CH4 comments page on Tuesday after the airing of the Dispatches programme and the amount of unprecdented 'guests' on the related CAG thread, it was a cinch we were going to get some snoopers and subversives on the site and I smelled a rat and a called it out; it didn't call back and I make no apologies for sniffing that one out.

 

A 'troll', if you are unaware, is not defamatory and is, in web-speak, a lurker or a flamer. I'll let Wiki explain it better:-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

In retrospect, I have maybe commented on another 'troll' on another thread. Again, I make no apology as I have said nothing insulting to anyone. I can't believe I'm having to defend myself on an issue such as this.

 

Agreed on you final point.

Edited July 23, 2009 by FlyboyAgain
spelling; additions

[lyla]

HI Lyla again,

I ve read the CPTUR sounds very interesting. Especially the omissions ! Do you or anyone know who you can complain to about breaches of these regulations or who enforces them ? Big thanks:

[diddydicky]

With respect to yourself, Diddy, was that meant for me? If so, can I state that I don't 'keep taunting posters about their background'. Internet sniping is appalling behaviour but in light of the vindictivness demonstrated on the CH4 comments page on Tuesday after the airing of the Dispatches programme and the amount of unprecdented 'guests' on the related CAG thread, it was a cinch we were going to get some snoopers and subversives on the site and I smelled a rat and a called it out; it didn't call back and I make no apologies for sniffing that one out.

 

A 'troll', if you are unaware, is not defamatory and is, in web-speak, a lurker or a flamer. I'll let Wiki explain it better:-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

 

In retrospect, I have maybe commented on another 'troll' on another thread. Again, I make no apology as I have said nothing insulting to anyone. I can't believe I'm having to defend myself on an issue such as this.

 

Agreed on you final point.

 

wasn't aimed at anyone in particular - i just think that if people from dca's OC's etc want to come on here and enllighten us and give us some inside knowledge as to what goes on and the attitude/reasoning in their offices or their past employment then they should not be singled out for abuse

[diddydicky]

i may be wrong but i think it is site policy that you do not ask people to qualify their background and it is private unless they wish to reveal it

[Scouserlad]

Hi

 

Can sombody please take a look at my thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/210242-john-little-woods-shop.html

 

Thanks

john

[FlyboyAgain]

wasn't aimed at anyone in particular - i just think that if people from dca's OC's etc want to come on here and enllighten us and give us some inside knowledge as to what goes on and the attitude/reasoning in their offices or their past employment then they should not be singled out for abuse

 

You've obviously spotted several posts that could be construed as abusive; can you please provide links to them?

[omoeko]

Hi Everyone,

 

I have this CCA from Lloyds, they are making an offer of settlement, but I am not even sure if the CCA is legal.

 

Someone had a look and said its unenforceable as the figures are not right, but one thing though, I did sign it.

 

see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/210846-lloyds-tsb-just-offered.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/210846-lloyds-tsb-just-offered.html

 

Thanks.