Sorry I wasnt aware that there was another thread about this agreement. There are a few things to comment on but it would still be helpful if the actual agreement could be posted, assuming it hasnt been already. 1. Does the amount of credit actually state £25235? If this is the case then there are several problems for the lender. Firstly, the amount of credit is misstated because it includes the fee, which is contrary to the purpose of s9 of the CCA, and consistent with both the Walker judgement and also Wilson v FCT. It is also interesting that by adding the fee on in this way it takes the amoutn of the loan over £25k - I would hope the lender doesnt think that this takes the loan into unregulated territory. 2. What is the £2750 for? is it a broker fee? If so then interest can be charged on it and I am unaware of any requirement to specifically state this within the terms and conditions on the agreement providing the figures clearly show what is to be paid, which is also why I could do with seeing the agreement. 3. I would imagine that the courts would look at the agreement as a whole and assess whether the terms are laid out in a clear manner that is unlikely to lead to confusion. Whether prescribed terms have been breached is difficult to comment on without seeing it. Hope this helps.

The Walker case cleared up the general argument/confusion about interest on fees. The bit i dont understand is you said you were not told about a fee in the first place? Can you be any more specific or even post up the agreement with a bit of background info?

Southern Pacific Securities 05-2 Plc -v- Walker and Another – SC – 07-Jul-10 – Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke (SC, Bailii, [2010] UKSC 32, Bailii Summ, UKSC 2009/0217, SC Summary) – Consumer – Banking The appellant borrowed a sum from the respondent under a fixed sum credit agreement. A broker administration fee had been advanced to facilitate the loan. The agreement recorded the ‘Amount of Credit’ net of the fee, and the ‘Total Amount Financed’ included the fee. The borrower said the agreement was unenforceable for mis-stating the amount of credit by not including the charge for credit. Held. The borrower’s appeal failed. Since under section 9(4) “an item entering into the total charge for credit shall not be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.” The fee was indisputably part of the total charge for credit and must accordingly be excluded from the amount of credit. The fact that interest was charged on the fee did not change this: “Section 9(4) does not prohibit the charging of interest. If the fee itself was part of the total charge for credit, it seems to us to follow that interest on that fee was also part of the total charge for credit and not therefore to be treated as credit.”

Southern Pacific v Walker in the Supreme Court earlier this month cleared that question up. Yes they can.

The judgement was actually a very welcome one for lenders. Wilson v FCT is has for almost 10 years been the leading authority on the PT "amount of credit" and this judgement does not change anything in this respect. However, Walker was seeking to claim that a fee not showing as part of the amount of credit should have been listed as such because interest was being charged on it. To rule in their favour would have been completely inconsistent with the Wilson case, and they therefore rightly dismissed this argument. The judgement went on to confirm that just because the fee was (correctly) listed as a component part of the total cost of credit, this did not preclude the ability to charge interest on it. The judgement therefore provides clarification on the meaning behind s9 of the CCA 1974 (The meaning of credit) and in particular s9(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". It seems that this judgement is being described as in some way welcome to debtors, but I cannot see how because it effectively closes the argument that interest should not have been charged on fees as a means to get an agreement declared to be unenforceable. I am personally amazed that the Walker team couldn't see this ruling coming a mile off, and in the process incurred well over £100k in costs Anyone giving advice to forum members about challenging interest on fees needs to be aware of this case.

September 1998?

Why is it totally unenforceable? I'm intrigued.

Just to pick up on the above advice - the APR must be calculated to reflect ALL interest and charges that are present within the agreement. Most APR calculators work this out by looking and the monthly payment x the term minus the original net loan amount. The difference is the total charges (whether interest is added to the fee or not). Provided the APR is calculated on the total charge then it will be correct. The difference in Wilson v First County Trust was that the lender added the fee to the actual cash loan amount. This had two effects. 1) the APR would have been miscalculated because the fee would not have classed as part of the total charge for credit, because it was included in the net loan amount and 2) the amount of credit was therefore mis-stated, making the agremeent unenforceable. Hope this help to clear up some of the regular questions I see on here.

What, the pregnancy test people !!??

He was probably being amenable because he will probably have made more profit by keeping your deposit than actually selling you a new car - there aint much in it nowadays!!!

I sell on Amazon, and that happened to me once late last year. It turned out to be a delay in Amazon getting the credit card payment authorised by the buyer. They take it off your for sale list but don't list it as sold until the payment has been authorised. Hope that helps.

If you bought the van from a registered motor dealer then you can claim good title to the goods. The dealer who sold the van, however, has no such protection. Get in touch with the finance company and tell them where you bought the van from (send them a copy of the sales invoice if you'ge got it). This will divert their attention, quite rightly, onto the dealer for the recovery of their money.

The requirement for it to be signed for separately was introduced in May 2005 as part of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2004. Your document appears to be from 2002, so in that respect it is not technically incorrect. As the PPI was purchased prior to the Jan 2005 (introduction of FSA regulations and FOS jurisdiction) the only realistic option open to you is court.

As I wouldn't like the OP to make themselves look stupid maybe I can clarify something. The 'total amount payable' is exactly that - the total amount payable for the car INCLUDING the deposit, which was paid at the beginning. It doesn't have to be paid again, and if you add up the monthly payment x the number of months you will see that it comes to the total amount payable LESS the initial deposit. The total amount payable figure needs to include the initial deposit because it is this figure upon which the Termination and Repossession rights are calculated.

I found most of the images to be too small to read I'm afraid.

No problem

You are quoting from the Repossession: Your Rights section of the form, not the Termination: Your Rights section. This is statutory wording which is the same to all HP agreements, mickey mouse company or not.

I don't know where this 'third' info has come from - it is wrong. I order to VT a Hire Purchase agreement the law states that half the total amount payable needs to be paid.

A fair distance to be expected to travel to return the car would be the distance between where you live and where you bought the car from originally. Alternatively, some finance companies will offer the facility to pick up the car (your choice), but by doing this they are entitled to make a reasonable charge. HTH.

Actually that's the name & address of the guy from welcome

There is some useful info on this thread.

Don't forget that the total amount payable includes the deposit that you paid at the outset. If you work it back from there is does tally up with your total payments.

Hi so raven. There appear to be 2 issues, which need to be looked at independantly. 1. The Loan Agreement You need to check your agreement to confirm that it is correctly worded for you to sign off trade premises. It needs to state that you have a short time to cancel the agreement after signing. If it does not state this then what Credit Plus may have done is send you a BCT agreement that is intended to be signed on trade premises. This type of agreement does not carry with in a right of cancellation, and the manner in which it has been signed could render it enforceable only with a court order. Did you actually sign the agreement and return it? It may be worth requesting a copy of the agreement from BCT. 2. The Negative Equity This is a difficult one. Since you bought the car in Oct 07, the values of used cars have collapsed across the board. The p/ex price you have been quoted will also be nothing like your cars current retail valuation. Unfortunately there are many people in this position at the moment and the only thing that can realistically be done is to either ride it out by keeping the car or raising the money elsewhere to pay the difference off. Don't get too excited by the 'advice' of the car salesman - he obviously want to sell you a car. If he really knew his stuff he would know that the FSA does not regulate HP agreements.

UMF is there any reason why you seem to think that the site rules about the posting of commercial links do not apply to you?

Be very careful about doing this. Consider the total amount outstanding against the amount you woudl realistically get for the car. If you sell the car yourself you are voluntarily surrendering the vehicle, and remain liable for the entire outstanding balance. If you voluntary terminate the agreement, at the stage you are at now, your only liability will be the outstanding arrears, providing you have looked after the car. Also bear in mind that if you sell the car yourself, you will not get much more than trade price anyway. People only pay top money for cars when they have the safety net of a dealer's SOGA obligations.