Hi, In short, I received a claim form regarding a catalogue debt going back some time but less than 6 years. I sent a Part 31 CPR request as copied from this forum and I have just received the following response. Any help would be greatly appreciated as they seem to be able to ignore my request. Many thanks. Dear Mr 1970 Thank you for your email requesting disclosure under Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules. We confirm this matter will most properly be allocated to the Small Claims Track as this is a simple contractual matter and Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules will therefore not apply. In any event the Notices of Default and Assignment left the control of the Claimant when they were dispatched to you. It is the original creditor’s policy to issue agreements at the start of the contract and statements throughout the duration of the agreement and, in this regard, we ask you to refer to your own records. We confirm our client is not agreeable to an extension for filing the defence. As you will be aware a Claim was issued in this matter on 22 July 2015 and we are in receipt of your acknowledgement of service. Please respond to the Claim using the Response Pack provided by the Court. You should comply with the deadlines outlined by the Court in order to avoid a default Judgment being entered against you. We recommend you seek independent legal advice. Yours sincerely Bryan Carter Solicitors LLP

ok great - thanks for that. So, I'm relying on Section 56 - Antecedent Negotiations. I've found an OFT document OFT303 which actually speaks about Section 75 but comments on Section 56 as follows: Frequently, the supplier is the only person a customer has any contact with during negotiations. He provides information about the credit terms as well as about the goods, land, or services being financed by the credit - as when a furniture salesman explains to a prospective buyer the hire purchase terms on a piece of furniture. In this case (if it is a regulated agreement), under section 56 of the Act the supplier is taken to act on the credit grantor’s behalf - as his agent - as well as his own. In effect, this makes the credit grantor responsible for the negotiations as if he had conducted them himself. So on that basis, the lender is responsible for the negotiations as if they had actually conducted them. In my case this would be the incomplete contract, incorrect purchase price and the secret commission. Can I argue on that basis? Cheers.

I see - so as the broker sold the goods to the lender who subsequently HP'd them to me, that eliminates section 75 correct? Also, section 90 seems to be about protected goods being repossessed. That's not relevant here - yes it's protected but I still have the goods.

Hi, no repo. I still have the car under lock and key and wish to send it back.

that has been really helpful reading. Thanks. I'm just deciding now whether I should focus on section 56 or section 75. Basic summary of facts: I signed an 11 page HP agreement. 2 years later I realised that sections 1 to 8 of the terms were missing from the 11 pages. This has now been admitted as an error by the broker. The purchase price of the vehicle on the agreement is also wrong by £1500 too much. Again an admin error - nothing to do with part ex or refinancing etc just a simple numbers error. Broker put in writing that they do not get paid any commission. Subject Access Request revealed that a commission was paid. My argument is that the agreement is void. For a number of reasons I need to focus my complaint on the lender. So, I'm guessing I can use section 56 to make the lender jointly liable for the errors made by the broker. Correct? Can I also use section 75 on the basis of misrepresentation (wrong price of goods and secret commission) and also loss (paying too much as the wrong price was put on the agreement) Cheers.

thanks - very helpful.

Could I rely on CCA 1974 Section 75 - equal liability or does this only relate to faulty goods? (my issue is incorrect purchase price of vehicle, terms omitted from the agreement and secret commission).

Many thanks. It's a HP agreement for a car and the lender is British Credit Trust. FOS are handling it at the moment but it's a very messy affair. I made a comment in my complaint that BTC are liable for the actions of their broker but the FOS want me to support my statement. I had a reference to such a position but can no longer find it.

Hi, thanks for the quick response. The agreement is signed by the lender.

Hi All, I've been looking around all morning to find some case law or regulation information to support an argument I'm having. My questions is: If there is a problem with how a HP agreement was originally put together by a broker, should the lender also bear responsibility? I'm arguing with a lender about some errors with a loan agreement but they are pushing me back by saying it's not their problem and that I should take it up with the broker. I'm pretty sure that a lender is responsible for how their brokers put deals together. Or am I wrong? Cheers.

I've just found the offer letter from Kensignton which says "Your broker will be paid a fee. Please contact us if you would like more information" As I understand it, the amount must be revealed.

Hi, I took out a mortgage with Kensington in 2004 (I have since re-mortgaged with another lender). I was going through some paperwork and found a pile of SAR documents from Kensington which I obtained when reclaiming arrears fees. I've just noticed on one of the documents that Kensington paid £1350 to the broker who arranged the mortgage which I did know about. Can I claim this back as an undisclosed commission?

Update on this one. I've had a final response to my complaint to the lender and as you can imagine they're having none of it. With the incorrect purchase price on the contract and the incomplete terms and conditions they have simply referred me back to the broker as they say it's nothing to do with them. In regard to their alleged termination 2 years ago, they are standing their ground despite evidence to the contrary. So my next option is to either consider FOS or small claims. Key facts: Broker and lender should both be responsible for the setting up of the credit agreement. The agreement is void as sections 1 to 5 of the 8 terms have been omitted from the agreement. The purchase price of the vehicle is wrong by £1295 too much. No default notice or termination has ever been sent so if the agreement does stand I still have the option to VT. I think I have a pretty good case - surely it cannot be decided that this agreement is flawless with so many critical errors that go to the heart of the agreement?? The car remains on my drive

2 in a row but caught up by the 3rd month.

Any help would be much appreciated.