Loopyloppy, I started this thread on part 36 offers some time ago. Have a read: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/125636-36-offers-implications-tactics.html PM

Despite my having already informed them of a change of address, the last letter I got was actually sent to my previous address, and it is only because I still have a good relationship with one the neighbours that I managed to get it. So, today it dawned on me that they may try to file a claim against me at my old address (either accidentally or accidentally on purpose to avoid CPR rules), and then go for a default judgement due to not receiving an acknowledgment of service, reply or defence from me !! So I decided to call them..... but ONLY to inform them that they must amend any address details they have, and not correspond with me otherwise. I was determined not to get sidetracked or coerced into discussing anything else about the matter, so decided to plan out exactly what I wanted to say in advance..... Here's a rough transcript of the conversation. Chirpy little voice answered. Them: Hello, this is IQOR, can I have your reference number please. Me: Yes. Can I just ask if this conversation is being recorded. Them: Yes. Okay, I'd just like to verify that I'm recording this call too. Can I ask who I'm speaking too. Them: Your through to IQOR recovery services. Me: Yes, Who am I speaking too? Who is the person I am speaking to? Them: My name is XXXXXX Me: XXXXXX.... , what's your full name XXXXXX? Them: I don't actually give my surname out. Me: Okay, Could I have your badge number, or your ID, or position or extension number. Them: We don't actually have any reference numbers like that or extension numbers. Me: Okay, are the only XXXXXX that works for the company? Them: Yes. Me: Okay, for the record, as this call's being recorded, I'd just like to verify that at XX.XXpm on 20th April 2009 this calls being recorded, and as such I may request a transcript of this conversation. Okay, First of all , this is XXXXX XXXXX here I've got a reference number Them: Yep. Me: it's XXXXXXXXX. Them: Could you just verify the first line of your address and your post-code please ? Me: Okay, this is what I need to verify with you, the first line of my address is XX XXXXXX XXXX, and the post-code is XX XXX .....which address do you have on record ? Them: I've got a different address. Me: okay, On XX/XX/XX I wrote to yourselves and informed you of my change of address. This letter was sent by recorded delivery, and confirmed by Royal Mail as having been received by yourselves on XX/XX/XX. Them: Yes we can confirm we received the letter, and it has been passed onto our complaints dept, to be dealt with by a XXXXXXX XXXXXXX. Me: Okay, In such letter, amongst other matters, I very clearly stated at the head of the page my correct change of address and also a note that you should take notice of such. You must also consider this phone call as further notification of my correct address. ....... Okay, can you please verify whether or not proceedings have actually commenced regards this matter? Them: No, proceedings have not yet commenced. Me: Okay, should you commence proceedings and persist in using my old address, due to the written and verbal notifications you have now received, then such persistence to use my old address would mean that you have NOT complied with Court Procedure Rules practice direction 6.6 part 2. (at this point her voice went a bit shaky, as she suddenly realised she was dealing with someone who actually had some understanding of CPR, and was not just dealing with some mug that she could coerce into making any admissions or arrangements to make payment) Me: As such, now that you have been properly informed of my correct address, then any attempts by you to obtain a default judgement under Court Procedure rules section CPR12, will be set aside under CPR 13.2 due to your failure to properly serve any claim to me at my correct address. I will then also commence proceedings for damages and compensation. Them: Erm, yes.... (more shaky voice). Me: Furthermore, as I dispute the sums you are claiming, you may not presently submit or share any information regards this account or claim with any third party (including but not restricted to any credit reference agency). Them: (basically then confirmed that no information had at that point been shared with any third party). Me: Please, take note, that I have recently checked my credit reports, and which did not at such time contain any reference to such disputed sums. Should you now file or share any information regards this disputed sum, or indeed any of my personal information with any third party, you will be in breach of CPR rules and also the Data Protection act. I would then commence proceedings for an enforcement order for removal of such information, including a claim for damages and compensation. Then, I once more requested that they confirm the correct address they hold on record for me, which I which was still wrong, so I spelt it out and re-iterated that it must be changed on their system. We both confirmed this, and in a pleasant voice then I wished her a good afternoon. .... I think she was quite relived that I'd decided to end the conversation there !! If the call centre worker had interrupted me or tried to steer the conversation onto other matters, I had already prepared and was simply going to state the following, I WILL NOT DISCUSS THIS MATTER ANY FURTHER WITH YOURSELVES OTHER THAN TO CLARIFY THE POINTS I HAVE ALREADY MADE. In the circumstance, I did not need to use it, as the poor dear did sounded a bit taken back, and not actually know what to say (I actually felt a bit sorry for her), and she obviously knew she was not in any position to start making any demands or try to steer the conversation onto a trying to get any arrangements or admissions.

Decided to fire this off to IQOR. Feel free if anyone else wishes to use it ? DATE: 20/04/09 Your reference: XXXXXX REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER CPR 31.16 Dear Sir/ Madam, I recently received notification from yourselves that you intend to issue court proceedings regards the above case reference if I did not pay the sums you are demanding by XX/XX/XX. As your letter sets out your intent to start proceedings, along with the fact that your client has failed to respond to my request of XX/XX/XX for a copy the original agreement (made under section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) this satisfies all the conditions for me to acquire a court order (under CPR: 31 .16) to enforce your compliance.* I shall now give you a further 14 days in which to comply with my request. If you do not provide the requested information then I shall immediately make an application to the court for an order to force compliance along also with a claim for costs and damages. You may only avoid such an application to the courts by doing one of the following: 1/ Within 14 days, comply with my section 77 request by providing a true and legible copy of the agreement, taken from the original, and verified as being authentic by a duly authorised person.** or,
 2/ Provide me with written confirmation: 
 i/ That no further attempts to enforce or collect (either wholly or partly) any such sums will ever again be attempted (either by yourselves, your client or any other party).
 ii/ Any information regards such matter, or any other personal information pertaining to myself will nevermore be shared with any other party, and that anything already shared will be removed or retracted. Yours Faithfully XXXXX XXXXX * If it is your view that you (or your client) are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the actual creditor. 
In the case of an absolute assignment, you (or your client) are a creditor as defined by s.189. 
If you contend that you (or your client) purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties. ** I must remind you that under CPR 31.23, proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false disclosure statement, without an honest belief in its truth.

Hi all, Okay, received a bog standard "we will take you to court unless you pay the full amount by such a date" reply. As I now have written notification of their intent to start proceedings this allows me to make a CPR 31 request for information, and I may also do a SAR. The last letter I received was from a DCA called IQOR, who are purportedly acting on behalf of their client "Cheshire loans". The original agreement was with BOS, and I've never received notification of assignment to Cheshire loans, but I gather that Cheshire loans are just another division of BOS, so don't know how this sits with lack of assignment notice etc ? Anyhow, my question now is who do I issue with the CPR 31 and the SAR ? BOS, Cheshire loans, or IQOR ? Or all three ? I would like to get any agreements they may have, along with all and any information pertaining to this account as possible. My instinct is to issue it to IQOR, and to mention the CCA74 sections regards their obligations under either simple or full assignment. Any thoughts ? PM

Personally, I think much more should be made of this whole [problem] of consolidation loans, whereby the banks end up making yet more interest from you due to the initial charges. Such events are not just limited to business claimants, and I am surprised that few personal account claimants have picked up on this, as even if they do eventually manage to get back the charges and the interest upon such account from such charges, if there were also loans involved, the banks would still have been left having profited from their original actions.

Remember, there is also the aspect of PPI upon such loans. In the first part, such PPI should not have been sold to you, as being self employed you would normally be excluded from being able to claim against it anyhow. In the second part, as it would be front loaded, you would also be paying interest upon it, and finally it would often be incorrectly determined upon the agreement, making such invalid and unenforceable.

That quote of mine is so old I'd almost forgotten I'd made it !! I agree, taking out a loan to clear an overdraft makes poor economic sense for the business account holder. You end up paying interest upon interest already paid, and it also often carries an onus to provide a guarantee. Also, because such loans also often come with a removal of any overdraft facility, this puts you into a position whereby you have to ensure that funds are available for each monthly installment, or be faced with more defaults or a calling in of the guarantee. However, many SME's are forced by their banks to take such loans, under threats of facing actions to recover the overdraft anyway. Plus, the overdrafts they are used to clear may have been covered by similar guarantee's anyhow. The banks force you into such a position because they want to see a monthly reduction in borrowing overall, plus it make them look good to HO. Anyhow, as I also said, I think there is a case and reasoning for claiming back the extra interest you incurred upon subsequent loans, if such loans were taken out to repay borrowing wholly or primarily due to charges & interest upon such in the first place. Remember that such an interest claim would be threefold, as this is the true extent of the [problem] they have perpetrated. ie: you incur charges; you incur interest upon the account that the charges were upon; you then incur interest upon the loan used to repay the charges; you then incur interest upon the account used to repay the loan installments. Such a claim should ideally be made at the same time as the charges reclaim, in order to show relevance and proof of cause of action, but the calculations for interest would be a little different as calculating that incurred upon an account. For example, by entering your loan installments and monthly interest upon the loan in the column where the charges would normally go on the sheet, but only claiming the figures that come out in the interest side. ie: you don't claim the installments back, as these sums are being claimed back in the charges sheet. Of course this all relies upon having a cause of action in the first place; which for business claimants is a bit difficult at the moment, and brings us back to our own ongoing contentions, that due to absolutely no consideration of business account contracts, the OFT case has not yet brought any definitive clarity to the position of business claimants The other thing to bear in mind, is that any loan would also be covered by the CCA74 or CPUTR06 (depending on when the loan was taken), as regardless of the titles of such statutes they are not just confined to protecting loans taken by personal account holders. They also protect most business loans too (certainly for sole traders up to £25k). So, if the loan agreement is flawed or they have no proof of an agreement, there are then other ways to challenge it, and possibly have such loans declared unenforceable ......... so by forcing a loan to repay charges upon the business account holder, then the banks may have actually shot themselves in the foot, by giving you more rights than you would have had if they'd just left it as an overdraft !! PM

Update. Responded to IQOR on 08/04 with the following, and not yet heard back from them: Account number: XXXXXXX YOUR REF: XXXXXXXXX NOTIFICATION OF ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE Dear Sir or Madam, I do not acknowledge any debt to yourselves nor to any client you are claiming on behalf. As such I am formally declaring that any account relating to such claims is in dispute. In such circumstances may I remind you: 1/ That you are not entitled to enforce any such sums nor be entitled to any payments. 2/ Any further or renewed attempts at collection or legal enforcement will be challenged as unenforceable, and also considered as harassment. If you or your client persist, then I will commence legal actions through the courts to prevent such harassment, along also with a claim for damages and compensation. 3/ Such actions would also be reported to the relevant authorities, including ; Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trade (OFT), Information Commissioners Office (ICO), 
Financial Services Authority (FSA), and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
 Background: I have previously corresponded with your client through their then agents Robinson Way & Co. On 08/12/08 I made a formal request for a true signed copy of the agreement regards the above account under s77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In this letter I also stated that under either s.175 (simple assignment) or or s.189 (total assignment) of the CCA 1974 they also had an obligation to pass the request on to their client. They responded on 30/12/08 stating that they had requested such document, and that this account had been placed on temporary delay pending any anticipated receipt of such document. On 11/03/09 I received a further letter from Robinson Way & Co stating that the account had now been passed back to their client. Their (and now your) client has since failed to provide the requested information, and as more than four months have since passed your client is now also committing an offence. Whilst this situation remains so, under section 77 (4) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 you and your client are not entitled to enforce any such supposed debt, nor be entitled to any payments. Furthermore, your client is also now committing an offence. Section 77(4) of the CCA74 states: If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with Subsection (1) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;
 and If the default continues for one month he commits an offence. Your present actions now amount to an offence. Under the OFT’s Debt collection guidance (final guidance on unfair business practices of July 2003) this means your clients suitability to hold a consumer credit licence is also questionable. If your client persists with similar actions (either through yourselves or any other means) I will report all parties to the relevant authorities, so that my complaint is on formal record for consideration for when renewing or revoking their license. The relevant guidance states: 1.1 The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has a duty under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ensure that licenses are only given to and retained by those who are fit to hold them. The Act provides that the OFT take into account any circumstances which appear to be relevant and in particular any evidence that an applicant, licensee, or their employees, agents or business associates, past or present, have: * committed offences involving fraud, or other dishonesty or violence * failed to comply with the requirements of credit or other consumer legislation * practised discrimination in connection with their business * engaged in business practices appearing to us to be deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not).

 Under section 1.2 of the same guidance. 1.2 Where the OFT has evidence we can take action to refuse or revoke the credit licenses of those concerned. ... Furthermore, please also consider this letter as statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act. In the absence of any valid agreement, you, along with your client, and any other third parties (including but not limited to any credit reference agencies) must also cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. . 
 Should you refuse to comply, then you must within 14 days provide me with your reasoning for continuing to process my personal data, stating any legal basis you may actually have, and also which parts of which statutory legislation this reasoning depends.
 If you fail to provide just lawful cause for continued processing of this data, or I disagree with your claims, then I shall file complaints with the appropriate authorities, and initiate a court action to get compliance, along also with a claim for damages and/or compensation. In Summary: You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment. You may not take any enforcement actions regards such account. You may not issue any default notice related to the account. You may not add further interest or any other charges to the account. You may not pass the account to a third party. You must remove anything that may already be recorded, and may also not register any further information in respect of the account with any third party or credit reference agency.
 Yours faithfully


 XXXX XXXXX 
 NB: Should you intend to arrange or instruct anyone to visit myself with regards this matter, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment, and I have no wish to make any appointment with you.

 If your representatives persist in trying to visit me at my property you will also be in breach of the law and actions will be taken, including a call for police attendance. 
You will then also be held liable to civil actions for damages due to a tort of trespass.

I would suggest that you make a formal request under CPR 31. This is a call for disclosure of documents; of both those upon which they intend to rely in their case.... and also any documents that may adversely affect their own case (ie: documents which you have called for). Basically... if they are claiming they had a contractual right to these charges, you want to see the actual contract (and terms and conditions) which supposedly gave them this right. Once these documents are produced, then and only then can the merits of either your claim or theirs be assessed by the courts, to see if such contracts and terms were lawful. PM

Thanks to you both. Going to send off a letter to IQOR once more requesting the agreement, and putting the account in dispute (with all the usual about not being entitled to take any enforcement actions whilst in dispute etc). PM

UPDATE: Not a peep from them for 3 months. The name of the creditor that last appeared on correspondence from them was "Chester loans". So I was interested to find out who these were, i.e. had BOS sold my debt on. Made an anonymous call to Robinson Way, and determined that Chester Loans is actually just a division of BOS, so no impropriety with regards selling the the debt on, failing with notification of assignment etc. To clarify my position here. I have no received a copy of agreement under my CCA request, and in any case if they do send one, I have determined that the agreement breaks several statutory rules in the manner it is executed and is unenforceable anyhow. However, today (after 3 months) received a letter from IQOR (proudly stating this is the new name for "legal & Trade".... as if I care). This is a demand for the full sum, along with all the usual threats of court action, defaults, doorstep visits etc etc. It also states that the creditor is now someone called Capital Bank ??? So: Going to write a letter: 1/ Categorically stating that I do not acknowledge any debt to them. 2/ That while the debt is in dispute they had no right to assign it to any other party. 3/ That the creditor has not supplied me with anything in response to my CCA request. 4/ That they have no rights to enforce the debt without a copy of the CCA. 5/ That I will not entertain any doorstep visits. etc etc Any guidelines or suggestions anyone ? PM

Okay, What they are upto is this: Being a business account, your friends account was never covered by the UTCCR99. This meant that the grounds for claim for all business claimants was always solely upon the contention that the charges were unlawful as they were penalties under common law. The OFT case was originally brought upon both grounds; the claim that the charges were subject to a test of fairness under UTCCR99, and also the contention that the charges were penalties under common law. The first round in this case was concerned with the common law aspects, and in this respect the judge has now assessed all the personal account T&C's for the relevant period for all the banks. He has declared that the terms do not give rise to the charges being considered as penalties under common law (except perhaps for some of Natwests historical terms). This means that the OFT case will now only focus upon the UTCCR. The banks are now using this ruling, and claiming it means that there are no longer any grounds to bring any charges case under common law. They are trying to claim that this ruling includes business account T&C's. Which in my, (and many others) opinion is wrong, as at no point was there ever any consideration of ANY business account T&C's. If the banks contention of applicability is allowed to ride, then this means that as a business account claimant you would be left without any cause of action. i.e. The UTCCR never applied anyway, and now the contention that they are penalties under common law could also be lost. So, in your friends case, the bank fancy their luck. They believe that if the stay is lifted in your friends case, the claim will either be struck out, or if it goes to court they would win. So, they are maybe prepared to let the stay be lifted, and see what happens. If the stay was lifted, and the case were to proceed, a carefully worded statement of case claiming that the OFT case judgement should be discounted as being any kind of precedent on common law (as it only considered and ruled upon "personal" accounts T&C's, and your friends were "business" T&C's), may allow the case to go to trial. At which point a judge would then look at your friends particular "business" account T&C's and decide if the T&C's were sufficiently different, and if so whether they then did or didn't make the charges penalties. If it is Natwest your friend is dealing with here, to your friends benefit is the fact that even Natwest "personal" account T&C's have not been given a clean bill, so this raises some doubts all round, and maybe makes your case stronger in prompting a judge to allow such a case to trial. However, pursuing the act of first getting the stay lifted, then trying to get the case to trial, and then getting a favourable ruling would be a lot of work and be quite stressful. I would not recommend it to someone unless they have some experience of the system and perhaps already spent some time in court.... is your friend in such a position ? I would suggest just not contacting them anymore, and just letting the stay remain in place, until there is perhaps a bit more clarity on how courts may view the applicability and crossover of the OFT case regards business T&C's. PM

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790 "If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.” Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940

They are carrying on, because commercially it still makes sense. Even if deep down they know or feel that they would ultimately lose, the longer they can stall making the pay-outs the more they can continue to make in interest etc the meantime. Even if forced to pay back everything to everyone, and have to pay statutory 8% interest on all claims, they still have the benefit of such funds in the meantime. This they can continue to lend back out at commercial rates, ranging from anything from say 12/15% on loans right up to 29%+ on unauthorised overdrafts. Plus remember that such interest gains would be compounded, whereas statutory interest pay-outs would not be, and so this effectively increases such gains in real terms even further . Plus, there is also the fact that the longer it all goes on, then more and more people will drop out, lose interest, convert their existing debts with them into profitable loans, or simply pop their clogs. On the plus side for claimants; is the fact that the longer it goes on, the more and more you will earn in statutory interest (which is much much better than any pathetic savings account at the moment), plus the fact that having the matter judged by the highest courts and appeals possible will leave no doubt as to a claimants position once the issues are resolved. PM

Your letter was excellent, and I just planned to have a little jiggle with it..... but then got a bit carried away. By all means, use your own best judgement, either use the letter as it stands, or jiggle about yourself, or incorporate some of my own ideas below ? In any case, regardless of how the letter is worded or laid out, IMHO I don't think they'll settle at this point..... and you will then have to make the decision as to whether or not to proceed. It's then a bit of a toss up as to whether a judge would lift the stay, and then a bit of a toss up as to how he (or another) would then view the actual terms in question. I've not seen them, and so couldn't say how sufficiently different they are to later terms. And in any case, such would only still be open to interpretation by a judge. However, no harm in sending a letter at this point, as it shows how you continue to try to be reasonable. Regards PM "WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS Dear Sir/Madam I am writing with regard our present dispute, and my aims to resolve this matter. Firstly, with reference to your letter of (xx/xx/xxxx), regards your requests for essential information pertinent to this case. I would like to clarify the following points: 1) The figures included on the schedule of charges relating to the ‘account balance at interest date’ were calculated as an average for the interest period that reflects the amount of interest charged by the Bank. Without the Bank’s own daily interest calculation software, it is not possible to reach a definitive figure, but a reasonable lay-person’s effort has been made to give as accurate a figure as possible. If you wish to query or contest these calculations, please provide the actual balance at each daily interest point and a full breakdown of how interest has been calculated by the Bank for the interest period. 2) Interest from Business Development Loans is included as part of ‘interest charged’ as the loans were taken out solely in respect of repayment of indebtedness caused by the Bank’s unfair charges. It must be particularly noted that the cumulative charges and interest are greater than the amount borrowed in each instance. 3) Thank you for bringing to my attention the refunded charge on xx/xx/xxxx. I have amended the schedule of charges and I will also submit these amendments to the Court (revised Schedule of Charges and Interest is attached). 4) Your refusal to provide further documentation in your last correspondence cannot be justified by the current stay on this case. This information was requested in a Subject Access Request (Data Protection Act) and a CPR 18 Request in 2007. Further to point 4: As stated in my original REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION UNDER CPR PART 18 (DATE OF SERVICE: xx/xx/xxxx), it is essential that you provide the items listed below without delay, in order that I may fully particularise and support my Defence and Counterclaim: a) A true copy of any Default Notice/s issued in respect of these accounts, as referred to in paragraph 3) of the particulars of claim; b) Full Terms and Conditions and charges tariffs relating to each account (including the Personal Current account shown above), from the date when the accounts were opened and including any revisions or amendments to the present day. c) Specific details of all fees/charges levied by National Westminster Bank in respect of these accounts and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied. d) Where there has been any event in my accounts' history which has required manual intervention by any member of National Westminster Bank, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my accounts held or formerly held with National Westminster Bank. If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response. You are required to comply with these statutory and legal obligations regardless of the current stay. If you do not respond positively to this repeated request by the xxth April 2009, I will seek a compliance order from the Court without delay. I am now preparing to take the following actions: 1/ An application to the Court for the current stay regards this case to be lifted. This would be upon the contention, that a recent ruling by Judge Justice Smith has quite particularly refused to declare the contractual terms upon which your client relies as not giving rise to the possibility of such charges being penalties at common law. Therefore, as my case does not include any further pleadings regards fairness under the UTCCR99, there is now no longer any barrier to allowing this case to proceed to trial to determine the penal aspect of such charges. 2/ I am also preparing evidence to be brought to the Court’s attention of your clients unreasonable conduct and actions. National Westminster Bank have been deliberately obstructive throughout this whole case, whilst also continuing to unjustly profit at my expense. Such actions include (but are not limited to); i/A continuation of the practice of charging 29.5% interest on the disputed account, despite my request in April 2007 to freeze interest until this dispute is resolved. This has resulted in a long period of time throughout which the Bank has charged extraordinarily high rates of interest on the disputed debt (amounting to more than £3500 over the last two years). ii/ Your client also delayed and frustrated the progress of my Defence and Counterclaim by not complying with my CPR 18 Request for information that would support my case. These actions have created an ongoing situation (wholly of the banks doing) that unfairly privileges them at my expense, and as such, these actions will be brought to the attention of the courts either in part or in a separate action for wasted costs, expenses and damages. I am still prepared to now allow you one final chance to settle this matter without further recourse to the courts. Therefore I once more attach a full schedule of the charges and debited interest claimed. The charges and debited interest claimed presently stand at £xx,xxx. Plus the Court costs and expenses of £xxx. This sum is also subject to statutory interest, which at present is £XXX. Therefore, I will now accept the sum of £XXXX.XX. This sum would be accepted in full and final settlement, but only if it is received within the next 7 days. I would strongly urge you to settle this matter NOW, in order to save yourself further costs and accruing interest. I trust this clarifies my position, and I look forward to your response. Yours faithfully, Gandolfi"

Well done, Nice to hear of some progress being made in hardship cases. Perhaps you wouldn't mind helping others here by explaining how you managed to get your case reconsidered on hardship grounds? Did you have to make an application, any submissions etc ? Would you mind (with personal info removed) posting up an outline of any submissions & arguments you put forward ? PM

So, in short: They have been refused permission to take an appeal to the House of lords to appeal against the current judgement. However.... they are entitled to appeal to the House of Lords, for a reversal of the decision not to be allowed to appeal to the House of Lords. If the House of Lords then reverse the judges directions that they are not to be allowed to appeal to the HOL .... then they will then be allowed to take to the HOL an appeal against the current judgement. ...... this is getting more and more like a Monty Python sketch everyday !!

Theyrcriminals I don't think everyone is necessarily ignoring you, I just think everyone is a bit unsure what to do at the moment. I totally agree with you regards the fact that no business t&c's have been considered throughout the OFT case, and so it's a really gross injustice that any rulings on personal accounts should then encompass business contracts. It would perhaps be nice to see a few RBS/ Natwest business claims go the whole 9 yards, which might then perhaps highlight the plight of business claims, and also the injustice of the OFT case ? Other than that; Things are still going on behind the scenes at CAG, and there are still a couple of very powerful alternative approaches currently under test. But these really need to be kept under wraps and tentatively tested out before more general release. I would really love to give you all more info on such, but doing so could jeopardize their success, and until we have the first results back nothing more can be revealed. As to when this could happen, I really cannot say or make any promises, as such timing is down to so many factors (claimants own case and momentum, courts consideration and opinion etc) So all I can say at the moment, is that there is still hope, and hang on in there. PM

Peter Thanks for your reference to the TCC amendments. Yes, I had seen it (and forgotten about it, so thanks for reminding me). Now have a copy on file. You made a typo, and the actual SI is SI 1999 / 3177. 1999 being the year of scripting, not 1198 !! ..... I don't think there's many victims of PPI mis-selling still around from the 12th century...... and they would probably find their claims statute barred anyhow !!

Thank you Peter, So, with the Total amount of Credit being incorrect, The TAP and the TCC, and the generally ambiguous and difficult to discern presentation of my obligations, I think I have more than enough ammo here. Will start planning corse of action in the morning after a good nights sleep. Thank you again. PM PS: The agreement was in 2001

Okay guys. Thank you both so very much for the time and effort put in, both in checking the figures for me, and in posting. So, it looks like using the superior prog (dualcac), and the superior understandings of you both then the figures do add up correctly. However, as I say I do still contend that the PPi should have been considered as a charge for credit, and so subsequently should have been excluded from the cost of credit. To this end I have just taken another good read of the Supreme Court Judgement of London North Securities v Meadows [2005] EWCA Civ 956. The circumstances of the case are nearly identical to my own. The conclusion of the case was that the Insurance Premium should be considered as being a charge for credit, and as such should NOT have been entered into the total cost of credit. It is a lengthy and complex judgement (which I'm sure you learned folk are probably familiar with), with the juicy and pertinent bits being thrashed out form around paragraph 40. The conclusion was. 69: In those circumstances, while we respectfully disagree with the judge’s conclusion in respect of the mortgage arrears, we agree with his conclusion about the insurance premium. It follows that we dismiss the appeal because, if the insurance premium was part of the total charge for credit, as we hold, then the amount of credit under the agreement was incorrectly stated. It should have been stated as £5,000, not £5,750. It is agreed that this is a breach of the Act which cannot be overcome. It follows that the judge was right to dismiss the claim, though not for the first of the reasons that he gave. So, using this along with Wilson does I believe give me grounds and cause of action. Any thoughts ? PM

Peter, See your online. I have to go out for afternoon now. Would greatly appreciate your views on my earlier post, but please excuse me if I don't view and comment upon such until later. Regards PM

It is a bit ambiguous, and does still leave room for abuse by a lender. For example the creditor could simply provide c & e...... ..... which would leave you not even knowing how much you were paying each month, how long it would go on for, and even which date of the month you would be clobbered by such !!! 5. Consumer credit agreements. A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-- (a) number of repayments; (b) amount of repayments; © frequency and timing of repayments; (d) dates of repayments; (e) the manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable.

Peter Thank you. I have been looking over and over this agreement again, I don't have dualcal (mac user) so I've been entering the figures into a couple of online calculators. Firstly, this one Loan repayments calculator | This is Money (which though not the FSA, I got actually directed to it via an FSA site, so I presume they approve it). Secondly, this one: Loan calculator : FSA money made clear (which actually is the FSA's own site calculator, but not as accurate, as it works in years rather than months) These are my own findings. If we just look at the principal loan (£11000) for a moment, and deal with the PPI separately. Using the first calculator If I enter: The loan amount as: £11000 The period as: 84 months The % rate as: 15.12 ( This site asks for the "actual" interest rate rather than the APR ). I get the following: Total monthly repayment: £213.01 However, .... if I instead enter: The loan amount as: £11225 Then I get the following: Total monthly repayment: £217.36 (which is just 1p less than the figure appearing on the agreement under installments, and is probably just to do with leap years etc) So, this indicates to me that the £225 HAS been included in the total sum used to calculate the installments. Using the FSA site calculator: If I enter: Loan amount: £11225 Repayment period: 7 years APR: 17% Annual payments: 12 I get the following result: Repayments: £229.39 (which does not correlate to anything on the agreement, so instead is probably just giving me the effective repayments ie the APR) ..... So, If however, I enter the annual % rate (ie: 15.12), instead of the APR . I get the following result: Repayments: £217.36 ..... so, this gives the same result. So ... either way.. it looks as if the £225 HAS definitely been added to the £11000 for the purpose of calculating the repayments. (If I use the same calculators on the PPI, they give the same figure of £17.98 as on the agreement. So this verifies that the calculators are working correctly.) What should have happened: The charge should not have been added to the amount of credit, and then used to calculate the installments; by adding interest on the whole sum for the period of the loan. Instead (as the charge was paid immediately upon draw down), even though such sum would indeed have still been repayable by myself, as a charge, no interest over the period should have been due upon such. Therefore, I should have been repaying: £213.01 per month as installments and interest for the £11000. Plus the £225 (without interest) spread over the period of the loan (84 months), which would equate to roughly an additional £2.68 per month. This means my monthly installments should have been: £213.01 + £2.68 + £17.98 = £233.67 Giving a Total repayable of £19,628.28 Instead, they were: £217.37 + £17.98 = £235.35 Giving a Total repayable of £19,769.40 Which is difference of £141. in their favour. ...... on top of this, I do still contend that the PPI should NOT have been included in the Total amount of credit (based on my earlier assertions). Instead it should have treated as a "charge for credit", and paid back in the same manner, this would have meant (repaying the £928.08 over 84 months but without interest) installments of £11.05. In which case, applying the same principles, My monthly repayments should have been: £213.01 + £2.68 + £11.05 = £226.74 Giving a Total repayable of £19046.16 As opposed to the £19,769.40 Which is a difference of £723.24 in their favour !! Do you agree ?? PM

The only reason I know it was 84 months, is because that is what I was told over the phone, and on an estimate sent prior to the agreement being signed. Now, under schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (agreements) regs 1983. The requirements under the headings "repayments" states: 5. Consumer credit agreements. A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-- (a) number of repayments; (b) amount of repayments; © frequency and timing of repayments; (d) dates of repayments; (e) the manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable. .... so, as the agreement does state: b, and c, would this mean it complies ? You would think that the actual duration of the loan was one of the most fundamental requirements ??