Welcome Finance **WON**

[postggj]

second note with reference my litigation is allowing four weeks for them to try and sort out my dispute enough time for the court

 

many thanks

 

keith

[postggj]

update

 

filed in county court this morning 28/09/07

[postggj]

deleate

[postggj]

please chec these two agreements thanks

[postggj]

[postggj]

[postggj]

have now sussed photo bucket

have posted on my own thread

can u great guys look at the two agreements and give it your urgent attention

any help greatfully received

i know i have my own thread but desperate

many thanks

[postggj]

am desperate for some one to check agreements

many thanks

[postggj]

[postggj]

deleate

[livelylad]

3 threads merged again, please stick to this thread. This allows us to follow this claim easier.

[streetgang]

Can someone please clarify, and provide any links to relevant documents, is it legal for the administrative fee for setting up a contract to be added to the original sum owed, which results in the debtor paying an exhorbitant interest rate of 28% for this fee?

Surely the fee is a one off event? After all, without it surely the company couldnt proceed with the contract and so wouldnt get any of the 28% interest on the £6000 loan.

 

Please advise as I would like to claim back this "interest" if possible.

Thanks

[groovychickmum]

use the wilson case..admin fee/accept fee cannot be added to amount before calculating the monthly payments/interest.

the loan one is an unforcable agreement, they have charged interest on admin fee, please read the wilson case, and print it out.

[groovychickmum]

the car one is too, squinted eyes a bit(lol), accept fee in that too for 85 quid.therfore UNENFORCABLE.

you defo need the wilson case printed out, and to use in court, the judge cannot go back on what is written in law.

House of Lords - Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant)

[postggj]

many thanks ref car finance charged accep fee and finance charge is that legal

also have filed claim do i send extra info to court to be included in claim

is there extra fee

[groovychickmum]

hi again, court fees etc.aint got a clue.

but your defence needs to be for the unenforcablity of the agreements, the wilson case NEEDS to be added to your docs for court, this cannot go any other way but yours. the case went to the house of lords, therefore no judge can go against that ruling............which is YOUR defence, fee added before .

[groovychickmum]

read the wilson case.link above

0r

Your Rights: The Protection of Property Rights: The right to a fair hearing under Article 6: Introduction

 

The right to a fair hearing in disputes concerning property rights

 

Article 6(1) provides the right of access to a court in the determination of a person's civil rights and obligations. The ownership, use and enjoyment of property is a 'civil right' within the meaning of Article 6(1). Therefore in many disputes concerning the determination of property rights, the parties are entitled to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time.

 

A large number of decisions involving property rights are taken by public authorities that may not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal. However, in these instances it does not matter that the decision maker does not comply with the requirements of Article 6(1) provided that the decision is subject to control by a judicial body (ie judicial review) that has full jurisdiction and does satisfy the Article 6(1) guarantees of impartiality and independence.

 

This was considered in detail by the House of Lords in R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Holding and Barnes plc and others 2001 2 All ER 929. The House of Lords held that various planning procedures which involve intervention by the Secretary of State for the Environment are compatible with Article 6(1) due to the availability of judicial review.

 

An example of a breach of Article 6(1)

The Court of Appeal has held that certain provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are incompatible with Article 6(1) - Wilson v. First County Trust 2001 3 All ER 229 .

 

The facts of the case concerned a loan agreement between Mrs Wilson and a pawnbroker in which she received a loan of £5,000. The transaction involved a document fee of £250 and the loan agreement incorrectly stated the amount of credit to be £5,250 because the document fee, which was not itself credit, was added to the sum. The fact that the amount of credit was misstated meant that the loan agreement was not a properly executed regulated agreement because it did not contain all of the prescribed terms.

In consequence, the pawnbroker was required to apply to the court for an enforcement order. However, section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 deprives the court of any power to enforce a regulated agreement from which a prescribed term has been omitted. The Court of Appeal found that, in the absence of any legitimate justification for the policy, the blanket restriction on the enforcement of the pawnbroker's contractual rights under the loan agreement was incompatible with Article 6(1).

[streetgang]

thanks that is very interesting. what this appears to be saying is that as the arrangement fee wasnt part of the credit, the interest against it is unenforceable?

 

x

[groovychickmum]

lol.........EXACTLY

[groovychickmum]

In Turn,making The Agreement Unforcable.

[postggj]

you guys/girls are great many thanks

[groovychickmum]

I Only Joined In June This Year, And Thankfully By Many, Many Hours Of Reading Posts/links Etc, I Have Learnt Quite A Lot.

I Think This Forum Should Get Some Kind Of Award/recognition In The Pupil Eye,due To The Help Consumers From All Walks Of Life Get By Joining And Helping Each Other.

[postggj]

just a thought welcome made my life hell and its pay back time.

looking at the wilson case can i claim back all payments, originally looking for account/default removal

[postggj]

hope my thread helps all welcome clients

[postggj]

welcome have untill 18/10/07 to acknowledge my claim. as welcome are notoriouse for ignoring letters can they use the postal dispute as an excuse for not acknowledge my claim