IT DOESN'T.... ....... ANYWHERE !!!

Okay, Here's the back page. Peter (et al), as you can see, there is NO more info on the rates, no TCC, no Total amount payable etc etc (which is why I simply omitted it before). However, as you can see, the only reference to the PPI is a simple tick box. (**I have blurred the bit on the right where it says who is covered, but it was actually filed in) This is my reasoning and evidence that the PPI was "required": 1/ The tick box clearly states: "Is this Insurance required" This has been ticked. AND, it was ticked by the manager. Thus making it "required". The ticking of this box by the manager is an indication that the manager was choosing to exercise that option, and so make the insurance "required". Had I instead truly had the option at such point; then attempting to exercise such option would have simply made the whole agreement irreversibly invalid anyhow !! (As all the figures on the front would then be totally wrong). ALSO: in the covering letters that came with the agreement (which I have) I was very clearly ONLY asked to only sign them (and not to consider or tick anything). I also did not sign any other agreements or anything else. So my contention is that the PPI was "required". And this is the same word used in 4© the TCC regs. Quote: [© a premium under a contract of insurance, payable under the transaction by the debtor or a relative of his, where the making or maintenance of the contract of insurance is required by the creditor-- Anyhow, this might just be a sideshow, as the other obvious flaws include: 1/ The Total amount of the loan is incorrect (..... maybe only incorrect by 35p... but the act DOES NOT allow for ANY discrepency or error, and this I believe has been backed up by case law..... which I'll try to hunt out and post up). 2/ The is no Total charge for Credit. 3/ There is no indication of the actual total amount payable. 4/ No statement indicating the circumstances in which any variation of interest may occur, and how it could be ascertained. and last but not least...... 5/ The arrangement fees (Charges) have been added to the loan contrary to statutory & common law. PS: Peter, if you want to enter the figures into a calc to check, the duration of the loan was 84 months. (however, even that is missing from the actual agreement.... it was only indicated as such prior to contract... but the only indication of period on the actual agreement is that I continue paying until the loan and any interest is all paid !! .... that in itself to my mind alone makes it an extortionate bargain .... especially coupled with the fact that all payments were made by DD.... So in effect they had unbridled access to my account, and the right to take: Whatever they wished, Whenever they wished, and for as long as they wished) !! [/img]

Peter, Regards your questions. I'm going to scan the back page of the agreement now, and post it up on here, so bear with me. I had not posted up the back page prior to this, as it most of the pertinent stuff is on the front. PM

Right, thanks for moving stuff to my new thread. So... I hope all you lovely peeps are not now just going to leave e here on my own !! My first question is what to do first. The first potential obstacle may be that this loan account is now closed. As mentioned, they chose to enforce the guarantee and then considered such sum as settlement of the o/s balance. So.... would I just make an application under sections 137-139 of the CCA74 as per if the agreement was ongoing ? Any suggestions, similar threads, references for a starting point ? I guess the first thing to then would be a prelim, setting out my cause of action, my objectives and my plans to resolve the issues? So any pointers in that direction too ? PM

Hi loopyloopy and friends. Been reading your story with interest, after being directed here by Shakespeare62. Firstly, I'd like to wish you all the best with this (and your new arrival too) !! Also, I'd appreciate if you could all subscribe and perhaps contribute to my newly started thread here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/190741-photoman-lloydstsb-loan.html#post2058646 Looks like I'm in a similar position to yourself, so could do with some help and advice......hopefully, I may be able to reciprocate and have some help and input to throw back too. Best regards Photoman

Photoman v LloydsTSB (loan). Having reviewed a loan agreement I engaged in with LLoydsTSB, I have now decided that the agreement was unenforceable and so presents me with a cause of action to have it declared unenforceable. The loan was secured against a personal guarantee for £4000 by my father. After defaulting on the payments the bank then issued default and enforcement notices, and this guarantee was then called upon. It is my intention to get the loan declared as an extortionate credit bargain and then have the courts exercise their rights to remedy the agreement under sections 137 to 139 of the CCA74. The previous posts have been moved from another thread.

Okay, Thank you Shakespeare & Steven, I think I'm now going to act on this one after all. yes, the total amount is mis-stated slightly, but I do wonder if this would be sufficient grounds ? ANyhow, I think the fact that the Charges have been added to the loanare adequate grounds to have it declared improperly executed. But... the first hurdle though would be the fact that the loan account is now closed. So, would I first need to get the agreement re-opened under sec 138 as an extortionate credit bargain ? If so.... any links to statutes, cases or other Caggers regards the re-opening of extortionate bargains. I think I have sufficient grounds; including the fact that the loan was taken under duress and pressure from them in order to repay existing borrowing with themselves (which incidentally was also composed of sums equivalent to accumulated account charges imposed by they themselves). I think I'm going to start a dedicated thread for this one, and will do so shortly. I'll then post a link, and would someone then be able to move the relevant posts from here ? Regards PM PS: Cosalt, The number of installments is covered by the statement under the section entitled installments, which states: Installments will continue until the balance of the loan and any interest has been paid. So, I believe this, along with the statement on the date of the month is sufficient to satisfy the prescribed terms. Incidentally, it was actually shown as 84 months (7 years) on pre contract quotes etc. NP: The box for PPI was actually on the back page, and it definately used the term "required". I'll try to scan and post it up when I get a chance.

Steven, Thanks, I had wondered myself about the £225 ? This sum does seem to be just "floating" around in the agreement. Ive entered both £11k and £11225 into dualcalc, and it definitely appears that the £225 has been considered as "credit". However, it is entered as a loan to repay such charge, and I think it would simply fall into all the same categories of credit as the £11k (restricted use, creditor debtor etc) thus negating the need to have its own prescribed terms. Other contentions I have considered are: 1/ The Total amount of the loan is actually wrong.... only by .35p.. but still ? However I doubt a judge would throw such a large loan out on such a small error. 2/ When the sum of £11k was deposited into account, it actually put the account slightly into credit. Obviously I would have then free to use such, making this additional sum "unrestricted" ? Quick opinions if you or anyone else mind..... and then maybe I'll start my own thread on the issue? PM

Here is the Lloyds loan I spoke of. IMHO, unfortunately, I think this one is properly executed, and was thus enforceable. ........ although, I would dearly love it not to be, as it caused me no end of grief !! So.... if anyone begs to differ... Do please say so, and give reasonings ? I was originally contemplating the following contentions: CONTENTIONS AND CAUSE OF ACTION: 1/ The PPI included in the loan agreement was actually required as a condition of the loan. i/ I have evidence of this by way of the manner that the loan was presented to me, and how it was processed. ii/ Also, by way of actual and explicit wording on the agreement (they actually use the word "required), and the manner it which it was laid out iii/ There is also nothing to demonstrate that the PPi was at any time presented for my consideration, nothing signed by myself, and also any details regards such actually pre-completed by the bank itself. 2/ Therefore, due to such terms and conditions (ie: PPI "required"): i/ Under 4© of the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regs 1980 the insurance was actually a "Charge" for credit, and so was NOT to be entered as part of the total "Cost" of credit. ii/ As it was in fact added to and entered as part of the "cost" of credit, then the agreement does not comply with schedule 6 (paragraph 2) of the Consumer Credit (agreements) regs 1983, as there is no term correctly stating the total amount of credit. iii/ As such then under section 61(1a) of the CCA74 the agreement was improperly executed, and so under section 65 (1) it could only have been enforced by a court. iv/ But, as the agreement failed to conform with the above requirements then under section 127 (3) it would be irredeemably unenforceable (remember the agreement pre-dates the later 2006 amendments revoking sec 127). v/ Therefore the default notice should not have been issued, and (under section 113 (3c) and 106 (parts a + d) of the CCA74 ) the guarantee was unenforceable, and it should never have been called upon, and now such sums should be returned. So...... as I mentioned before in an earlier post, that was my original opinion. However.... I am now doubting this?....... It could be construed, that even if the PPI is indeed deemed a "charge" for credit, such "charge" is also financed by a "loan", and that is a secondary agreement to the primary loan. This second subsidiary loan, DOES also contain the prescribed terms. (amount of credit, %, and repayments) Therefore, yes indeed, it is a multiple agreement; One for the primary loan to repay borrowing, Another for a loan to pay the premium for the PPI (regardless of whether it is considered a charge or not). BUT, the prescribed terms for each loan DO appear on the agreement. Thus it was properly executed. Anyhow, here's the agreement. The loan account itself is now closed. This was because it was a "secured" loan, and the bank issued a default, and then called in the guarantee. This was then accepted as f&f of the OS balance. Would like to hear others comments, either agreeing or disagreeing with the above, before I decide for certain? As I say, I would dearly love to tackle this one if possible.... as they gave me a huge amount of grief over it..... and it also caused family issues due to the calling in of the security "guarantee". [/img]

SAME, QUESTION YET AGAIN !! :o Anybody out there able to give some clarity on this ? I think this is an EXTREMELY important issue to consider for ALL people submitting a CCA request ! Could someone please clarify what the situation would be if a creditor actually does eventually come up with a valid copy of an agreement (albeit outside the 12 +30 days). I understand that whilst they haven't produced a copy they cannot enforce the debt or expect payments, as is clearly defined under section 77. So.... if this happens and you stop making payments under 4 (a) ..... what happens to the debt if they do eventually actually come up with an enforceable agreement ? What happens regards interest upon the account? Is there any proviso in this or any any other act as to how interest should be treated ? ie: Whilst they are unable to enforce due to not complying with sec 77, you've stopped making payments, but then they do later produce a valid CCA .... are they then entitled to calculate and STILL add interest for the period that no valid CCA was provided? Or... do they have to freeze interest upon the account during such period of non compliance, and the obligation of the debtor to pay interest only resumes from the time a valid agreement is produced? Is there also any difference in the way matters are dealt with depending upon when the loan was taken out ? ie: pre and post 2006 act. Can someone clarify, and perhaps post some links, statutes etc ? ANYBODY KNOW ??

Just bumping this again. Sorry to be a pain.... but I'm about to advise a friend on a course of action, and want to make all matters very clear to him first as to what all possible consequences could be. Any ideas, answers, links anyone ?

Yes, You do only need return the documents (or send some notice) if you later change your mind, and you wish to then cancel the loan. But, it is a statutory requirement that you DO actually receive such a notice, indicating; your right to cancel, how and when to do so, and who to do so to. In such a case as bigals (ie: the agreement was presented personally) the right to cancel notice must be: a/ Given to him at the time of signing. AND b/ Also another copy sent out within 7 days after the event of the in person signing. To paraphrase the relevant portions of the CCA74 act ... 64 - Duty to give notice of cancellation rights (1) In the case of a cancellable agreement, a notice in the prescribed form indicating the right of the debtor or hirer to cancel the agreement, how and when that right is exercisable, and the name and address of a person to whom notice of cancellation may be given,— .... (a) must be included in every copy given to the debtor or hirer under section 62 or 63, and (b) ...... must also be sent by post to the debtor or hirer within the seven days following the making of the agreement.. Section 64 then goes on to say.... (5) A cancellable agreement is NOT properly executed if the requirements of this section are not observed. Then section 65 says: 65 Consequences of improper execution (1) An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only. ... and then finally, section 127 then says: 127 Enforcement orders in cases of infringement (1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under— (a) section 65(1)(improperly executed agreements), ... (4) The court shall NOT make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a cancellable agreement if— ... (b) section 64(1) was not complied with. ....In short: Because a copy of the cancellation notice was NOT sent to bigal within 7 days of his personally signing the agreement ..... then the agreement was NOT properly executed ..... thus it could ONLY be enforced by a court..... BUT ... because of section 127, then even a court could NOT enforce it !! PM

Just bumping this question. Thanks for your answer NP, but it doesn't answer my question regards interest. Any further thoughts anyone ?

A good answer and good advice Car. However, matters do seem to get a bit confusing when there is a lack of transparency as to who exactly the dca are ? By this, I mean that many Creditors have their own DCA's, which are simply sub-divisions of the parent company, and these also have different names and even different addresses !! I recall that someone started a thread somewhere in which a list was started of Creditors and their in-house collections departments. Do you happen to recall such a thread, and could you post it here ? If not, perhaps one would be a good idea ? PM

I also read about this, and was disgusted (but not surprised) at reading about such schemes. From the Guardians (censored) article: The chancellor, Alastair Darling, told parliament: "I have asked HM Revenue & Customs to publish shortly a draft code of practice on taxation for the banking sector – so that banks will comply not just with the letter but the spirit of the law." So, Barclays have been caught red handed; actively planning and engaging in practices that are morally and socially wrong as well as highly economically damaging (whilst simultaneously lifting their begging bowls towards public coffers). Then, rather than amending the obviously flawed legislation(s) that permits such loopholes and practices, or issuing injunctions on such practices, or prosecuting the perpetrators... instead the government will "draft a code of practice"... ... well, that'll really have them quaking in their boots Darling !! We all know just how mindful of and keen to adhere to "codes of practice" banks and such institutions have all historically proven to be !!

I can't recall the exact section of the regs, but I believe handing over at the point of sale s not permitted, and instead the proper course of events, with separation of documents at differing times is prescribed and has to be done in such a way. This is so that there is made available a genuine cooling off period for the lender, and to also distance the creditor from having any opportunity to exert undue influence at the point of sale.

Well done, good news is in the pipeline on this I believe !! I don't imagine the other to side complying with his requests, and even if they do he just seems to dislike this agreement, and the extortionate charges on several other grounds anyhow.... so I suspect claimant will realise this, and now just write things off. Certainly does look like the judge was pro consumer (wonder what his CAG name is) ?? I also agree with PT, that the judges opinion on multi agreements is incorrect. ....so even if they do comply (not likely), .....and even if he does then concede that all procedures and documents are valid. ....and doesn't hang them on the charges, the format of the agreement, and the disregard for procedure in assignment. ....and he till maintains sec 18 not applicable. Then IMHO you would have grounds for appeal anyhow. regards PM

Hi all, Just helping a friend out with a cca on a loan. Could someone please clarify what the situation would be if a creditor actually does eventually come up with a valid copy of an agreement (albeit outside the 12 +30 days). I understand that whilst they haven't produced a copy they cannot enforce the debt or expect payments, as is clearly defined under section 77. Quote: Sec 77; ..... (4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence. So, if this happens and one then stops making payments under 4 (a), what happens to the debt if they do eventually actually come up with an agreement, and it then also proves to be enforceable ? What happens regards interest upon the account? Is there any proviso in this or any any other act as to how interest should be treated ? ie: Whilst they are unable to enforce due to not complying with sec 77, you've stopped making payments, but then they do later produce a valid CCA .... are they then entitled to calculate and add interest for the period that no valid CCA was provided? Or... do they have to freeze interest upon the account during such period of non compliance, and the obligation of the debtor to pay interest only resumes from the time a valid agreement is produced? .....perhaps instead with the period of the loan simply being extended to cover the period that payments were not made? Can someone clarify, and perhaps post some links, statutes etc ? PM

Thought you might like the irony here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-finance-industry/189419-cherie-blair-hired-pension.html .... how ironic... the ex Prime Ministers wife is taking his "mates to court !!

My understanding of the situation is this: Please confirm each statement? 1/ Bigal took out a loan for £1000 with First National. 2/ £575 of this was paid DIRECTLY to another company for the goods. 3/ £425 was paid DIRECTLY by cheque to bigal by First National (NOT paid to him by the goods supplier). 4/ The Insurance premium of £139 was paid DIRECTLY for the insurance by First National (ie: Bigal never received this himself). 5/ He can produce statements that show monthly payments of £24.08. If all the above is true, then because of the cash payment to bigal, this changes everything. This is because the loan for the goods, and the cash advance fall into separate categories, so it was a multiple agreement falling under section 18 of the CCA, and as such each part should have been treated as a separate agreement. They were: 1/ The loan for £575: This was: "Debtor-creditor-supplier" & "Restricted Use". 2/ The cash advance of £425: This was "Debtor creditor" & "Unrestricted Use" Instead, it was a contract containing 2 separate agreements bundled into one. As we can now prove that each part of the loan was a separate agreement, then each separate agreement must then contain and comply with the prescribed terms required under schedule 6 the Consumer Credit (agreements) regulations 1983. They are: 1/ - A term stating the amount of the credit 2/ - 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. IT DOES NOT show these terms for each separate agreement. So, IMHO, yes I would defend it on the basis of it being an improperly executed multiple agreement, and as such each part does not comply with section 61 of the CCA, thus making it irredeemably unenforceable under section 127. I would also not be too concerned with the Heath case causing an issue. From what I gather of that case, the loan companies barrister used the argument that all the loan was actually "unrestricted" use, so it did not fall into different categories, and so was not a multiple agreement. They did this by contending that as the part of the loan that was to be used for repaying an outstanding mortgage was paid via a solicitor, then these sums could in theory still have been used for another purpose, leaving them free to use such sums in an unrestricted manner. The circumstances in this case are quite different. I is a flawed ruling, on a flimsy assumption, and is going to appeal anyhow. I would however still try to read the case yourselves though, so as to understand the issues, and be ready to counter any attempts by the OC to try to use it as a defence. Note; In order to use the defence I have outlined here you must be really sure: 1/ That bigal never actually received the £575 at any point himself, and that it went directly from First National to another party (Advanced Fascia). 2/ That he also did himself actually receive the £425 directly from First National (ie: not received it via advanced fascia). This would then definitely put the two sums into 2 categories as outlined above: You should now have a read of some of the other claims in the debt forum, and seek out some wording for how to put this all across.

Welcome Ork, Nice to have you on board. Your story is shocking, but also sadly all too familiar. I do hope things work out for you (and all your current and ex employees). Hopefully you can all find some help and advice on here. Best regards PM

If you search the BBA site for the biog of Angela Knight here: BBA – British Bankers' Association - Chief Executive - Angela Knight CBE You will get the following information: Chief Executive, British Bankers' Association After leaving Bristol University with an honours degree in chemistry, Angela worked for the American industrial gas company Air Products Ltd. She was the product development manager for the application and sales of nitrogen as an inert carrier during the treatment of ferrous metal components. .... this basically means that her specialist subject is ... "HOT AIR"... ... so not much changed there then !! Incidentally, the page also allows you to download a jpg image of the lovely lady..... ..... soon appearing on a dart-board near pretty most everyone !! PM

Lets not forget here, that it was the banks that approached the OFT asking for this case to be be brought underway. This is not a decision they would have made without their own analysts contemplating what the most likely outcome, liabilities and future restrictions would be. They would not have instigated the whole case simply as a time wasting exercise (simply to stall all current cases), if they felt that upon conclusion it would just leave them with ultimately much the same, or possibly even worse (due to interest etc) liabilities.

... Sort of makes you wonder why we even have an OFT at all ? Perhaps they should be renamed: Office of Fairy Tales perhaps ??

Pah.... lightweight !! I've got going back to 1983 !!:D:D