Oh yes didn't spot that. I guess PCF Business Finance Limited only do unregulated business, in which case they don't need a CCA licence at all. Can't see any reason why two commercial parties operating at arms' length shouldn't agree to opt out of the CCA. I suppose it all boils down to whether PCF knew the OP was not actually using the vehicle for business purposes or not; the likelihood is they didn't as all the communication was between the OP and the dealer.

If you have voluntarily terminated the agreement, you cannot undo it (at least not without the consent of BH). If, however, they have terminated the agreement because of default and you have then agreed to voluntarily surrender the vehicle, you can withdraw that consent. It boils down to whether you have VTed (voluntarily terminated) or VSed (voluntarily surrendered).

But you have declared to PCF that you are using the vehicle for business purposes - read the declaration above your signature on the agreement. Of course this doesn't turn you into a business, but it does saddle you with the representation that you are. The amendments to the CCA did not make all credit regulated; it removed the 25K ceiling but also allowed for two exemptions, being high net worth individual and business exemption. Your agreement is covered by the latter. By signing it, you have agreed to opt out from the CCA. PCF Business Finance is just a trading style of Private and Commercial Finance Company Limited, which does hold a CCA licence (number 0023195).

Somehow I don't think he'll be doing either of those things.

Oh dear... I think I might come along to Lambeth on 31 October, I think it's going to be very entertaining. Will you still buy me lunch?

Sorry but you are stuck with it being an unregulated agreement because you have signed the declaration that the business exemption applies. It doesn't matter whether you actually use the vehicle for business purposes or not, but you have represented to PCF that it does so they have relied on it by putting the agreement onto unregulated form. You can't therefore claim the agreement should have been regulated when you have signed the declaration to say it shouldn't. I don't think you have anywhere to go on the interest rebate issue either. Rather than see it as being penalised for redeeming early, see it as not having the right to redeem early. PCF expected to recover 5 years interest from you, which is their profit on the deal, so if they let you redeem early and rebate the interest they are losing their profit on the deal. The only way you can get full value out of this agreement is by keeping the car and carrying on, as otherwise you pay exactly the same only you won't have the car. Having said that, it is worth checking the terms and conditions to see if there is a right for you to terminate the agreement early.

Exactly. They take the risk of a loss, and also the possibility of a benefit.

The merits of your claim were indeed crystal clear. Which is why it was dismissed. BTW actually putting in your appeal that the DJ was extremely biased will probably land you with indemnity costs. Such an accusation is always the last refuge of those with hopeless cases.

£3,000 is well within the tolerance of a guide price of £3,500. They will never be able to prove that the shortfall was due to the damage and not simply a bad day at the auction. Just deny liability and they will write it off as they will never sue you for it.

Except that the bank did perform - you paid for insurance, you got insurance. The fact it didn't cover the event you want it to cover is down to your failure to understand it. I notice you still haven't posted the actual operative clause of your policy, just some general guidance from a different jurisdiction. I understand exactly what it is you've written, which is why I know it is fundamentally flawed and has no merit. Have you actually got permission to appeal or is that application being heard on 31 October as well?

LOL! You know nothing whatsoever about me. Simply because I state a view that doesn't coincide with yours means I must have some illicit purpose? There's none so blind as those who won't see... Anyway, I didn't ask you to post the exemption clause, I asked you to post the operative clause which shows what the insurance policy covers. That might help. Meanwhile, as others have suggested to you, you might want to research the judicial interpretation of what enforcement of a contract means. Simply collecting payments you are contractually obliged to pay is not enforcement. Forcing you to pay by legal action is enforcement (there's a bit of a clue in the word, you see). Cobbetts must be loving this, they'll be coining it in fees.

What has the enforceability or otherwise of the contract got to do with it? Natwest aren't trying to enforce it, it's you trying to sue them. Why don't you post up exactly what events were insured against by the contract? No doubt the insurable events related only to goods (such as loss or theft), and inapplicable to services. And you had the benefit of being insured, just because you didn't make a (valid) claim on the insurance doesn't mean you never had a benefit. Do come back and tell us what happens on your appeal, as most people who lose simply abandon their thread.

Unfair relationships don't come into it - no credit was given. Sounds to me like the judge was correct - the expression "item" must mean goods as opposed to services, and what you bought was services. You also did have the benefit of the insurance because any goods you bought on the card were insured. To say you didn't have the benefit of it is like saying you should get your car insurance premium refunded at the end of the year because you haven't made a claim on it. Don't waste your time on an appeal, you'll just get lumbered with more costs.

It doesn't work like that. You won't be given a chance to put in a defence you don't actually know you have. You could have done that after the claim form was issued but before judgment was entered, but not now. Why don't you just ask Westcot for details of the assigment? Or why not ask M & S? If it turns out there never was an assignment you'll have something to bite on other than pure speculation. It's for you to prove there was no assignment now, not the other way round.

Westcot don't have to prove anything, they already have a judgment against you. It's up to you to prove you have a defence with a real prospect of success. Whether they contacted you before issuing proceedings is irrelevant, as is what is on your credit file. If you can prove that the account was not in fact assigned from M&S to Westcot then great, but now they have a judgment they don't have to prove it was.

Let me guess then - the agreement shows the price of the vehicle as £5,495 with a deposit of £1,295 being paid, which you never actually paid, meaning the amount you borrowed was the £4,200 being the actual price of the vehicle?

To have any hope of setting aside the judgment you have to put forward a positive defence, not just pure speculation like "the agreement might be unenforceable, but I don't know whether it is or not so the Claimant should prove it". Post #8 contains nothing of any substance whatsoever and will irritate a District Judge and result in the application being dismissed and further costs being awarded against you.

What deposit did you pay on the vehicle?

The issue of a default notice by itself does not remove the right to VT. It's the creditor terminating the agreement (which usually follows soon after a default notice) which stops the debtor being able to VT. You can't voluntarily terminate an agreement which has already been terminated. And if the right to VT still existed, you would still have to pay the arrears plus give the car back.

Is your counterclaim for money only? If so then there is no reason why you shouldn't apply for judgment in default, exactly as if it were a claim.

The point is that a judge hearing a CO application in September is not going to refuse it on the grounds of an instalment order (which has never actually been made) when 3 weeks later the creditor can simply apply for another one and the instalment order won't matter. Your best bet of avoiding it is the prejudice to other creditors route - if you are lucky you will get some panicky deputy district judge who will bottle it but I think you are wasting your time.

Given that from 1 October charging orders can be granted even when an instalment judgment is up to date, it's pretty unlikely the court will refuse the FCO here.

What about the 5 years' worth of interest on the 27K you borrowed?

Sorry but how can you deny there is a loan agreement between you and the ex when you accepted a lump sum payment from her and have been paying her back by instalments?

You're dreaming if you think the case is over. The judgment was set aside because they got one for 10K instead of 2.8K, their mistake. As the Tomlin Order has failed, the stay in the proceedings is now lifted and the action will continue to trial. It will not be for the 2.8K though, but for the difference between the 7.2K you have paid and the original amount of the claim. Having said that I don't think you'll have much difficulty persuading them to carry on with the terms of the Tomlin Order.