hillesden

[postggj]

gb

[postggj]

quick question

 

when a dca buys a debt they are very quick on registering a default on your credit file. whatever has happened to the default notice they have to send out by law. thereby giving you 2 weeks to rectify the situation. the whole thing stinks and they are able to get away with it.

[postggj]

just a thought

 

if a dca keeps on bragging they have legally purchessed a debt by assignment, and all rights to the account,

 

as they are the legal owners of the account, can i go after them with ref to penalty charges and ppi.

[postggj]

being hasseled by dlc

i know they have no hope as agreement invalid ref wilson case. acceptance fee, insurances included before calculating apr. gotcha

can anybody again check agreement for any more faults thanks. now posting agreement

[postggj]

you will find agreement below

[postggj]

[clutchingatstraws]

Charges must be stated in the agreement or can be challenged. They don't do this because it doesen't look pleasant.

 

e.g. You can have the ice cream but your a*se will double in size if you don't excercise.

 

PPI depends on your employment status.

 

I hope alanfromderby doesn't mind but you could ask him if the math is correct in regards to the interest rate.

 

It doesn't add up to me.

[postggj]

dlc are saying it is a regulated agreement under theconsumer credit act 1974. i stated it should state this at the beggining of the agreement. it states personel loan agreement.

dlc are saying it states this at the bottom near my signature. may i ask who is right.

also if any body is good with maths can they go over the figures for me please thanks

[postggj]

another matter of interest welcome in my sar did not produce copy of policy document or number . ref ppi dlc have now sent me this comments please

[postggj]

[itsamomentintime]

please delete the personal info from post 4, you know it makes sense

[postggj]

many thanks

[postggj]

if a finance agreement does not have all of the prescribed terms, company agrees uninforceble

on what basis can a court enforce the agreement

[Having_A_Knightmare]

It cant be enforced if it has not got the perscribed terms

[Having_A_Knightmare]

This is in contravention of The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983. I would also like to refer to Wilson & Anr v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under section 61 singlthat all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127 (3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

[postggj]

so if the defendant claims that the court can enforce an agreement under section 65 of the consumer credit act is nonsense

[Seahorse]

Yes, S65 DOES say it can be enforced only by a court, BUT...

 

S127 (3) then says,

The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

In other words, if the agreement is MISSING the prescribed terms, or those terms are inaccurate (such as the interest rate being incorrectly calculated), the court shall not enforce the agreement.

 

If the prescribed terms are there, but just happen to be all over the place and not as they are supposed to be laid out, it is enforcable by a court. But not enforcable at all if any terms are missing.

[postggj]

thank you so much