Weightmans/HFC County Court Claim

[Hopeful1]

There seems to be a pattern forming here, HFC ans Restons are doing the same.

 

No Agreement and starting court action: what is going on?

 

good luck with you case

 

 

Thanks scousepie

 

I think they take the risk 'cause there must be a very high percentage of people who don't fight back. The thought of going to court would petrify many so much they'd agree to anything. The people who pay up to whatever they ask for must far outway those who don't.

 

I've had my fair share of wobbles throughout this procedure so far, but i keep going 'cause of the wealth of information and support i can gain from this site.

[scousepie]

Quite right ppl get scared and these bludsuckers feed on this.

 

I can't believe that Restons are taking me to court and have admitted that the client don't have a signed agreement, maybe that think that I will back out at the 11th hour......NO CHANCE.

 

 

What Judge will order me to pay in the absence on a signed agreement, oh yeh, they have sent me two agreements one typed and the other one hand written..........Doh.

[robcag]

I can't believe that Restons are taking me to court and have admitted that the client don't have a signed agreement, maybe that think that I will back out at the 11th hour......NO CHANCE. It'll probably be them who has to back out

 

 

What Judge will order me to pay in the absence on a signed agreement, oh yeh, they have sent me two agreements one typed and the other one hand written..........Doh.

 

Glad to see you're keeping going H1, despite all the other stuff you have to deal with.

 

Cheers and good luck

Rob

[Hopeful1]

Glad to see you're keeping going H1, despite all the other stuff you have to deal with.

 

Cheers and good luck

Rob

 

Thanks Rob

[robcag]

Hi H1

 

I just read something whilst searching for something else which I'm sure must have been touched upon in various CAG threads, in fact I've probably read the gist of it but can't remember where (typical).

 

Going back to your agreement on post #109 (I think) which I've copied below, I'm wondering whether this item would have any bearing on your case. Appeal court confirms debt unenforceable : News : The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland

 

The reason I am wondering is because I see your loan had various insurances added in, so should those sums actually have been shown as part of the costs for the loan.

 

I note there is a 'loan' and an 'insurance loan' mentioned in the agreement, so maybe we need an expert opinion on whether there is any mileage there.

 

Sorry, but I can't remember if that stuff has been discussed in your thread before, but I'm sure you will remember.

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Rob

[Hopeful1]

Rob, that's really kind of you to dig all that out

 

I thought that the agreement was ok 'cause they've added it all up seperately to show the interest being added to both components ie the loan and the insurance. The term 'insurance loan' is an interesting one though, i'd not noticed that.

 

The one thing Chris picked up on was the fact they paid money out to other creditors and also gave me money for myself. This affected the type of agreement it is. I shall look for the link.....................

[Hopeful1]

...............took me a few mins to find it, but here it is:

 

 

Right then...

 

I have downloaded Paul's defence - all 9 pages of it! TBTH, I don't have time to read it all and the whole thing looks (from the quick scan I've given it) like it needs a revamp given what they've submitted after you've entered it. (Sorry if I'm wrong Paul!)

 

I want to get this right before I spend time looking at a "new" (amended) defence for you, so bear with me for a minute; (I'm trying to catch up on 7 pages of the thread)

 

Agreement first...

 

Paul has checked the figures and they are right. (I haven't checked them myself, as I don't have access to Dual calc on this PC, but I'm sure Paul would have been back in if they were wrong) On the face of it, it looks like the agreement is enforceable, right?

 

Having said that, as you know I'm a big fan of "APR rate" only agreements - personally, (I'm yet to test this theory) I believe that APR does not satisfy the "interest rate" requirement of s.60/s.61. If this works, the agreement is, in fact, unenforceable as a prescribed term is missing. More info on these threads;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/data-protection-default-issues/110146-car2403-hfc-bank-default-11.html#post1427785 (from post #209 to post #225

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/136701-apr-con.html

 

It's not relevant here, as it's a fixed sum agreement, but you can use this as prejudice argument if the default notice issues stand up;

 

Default notice

 

This Default Notice is a recreation of the original - there's an ongoing battle with HFC believing that a statement saying that the NOD is a "copy of the original" should actually mean a "true copy of that which was sent" and not a "copy recreated from their records of what was sent".

 

It would be really interesting if you could find the original, or can recall if this is an exact copy, for obvious reasons.

 

We know the default notice includes the penalty charges, as it's included in the "outstanding balance" on it, so this makes the "amount to be paid" inaccurate.

 

This is also missing, according to Paul;

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/131502-weightmans-hfc-county-court-8.html#post1444495

 

Statement of account

 

Not accurate as it doesn't include collections charges to date. Do you have something with these on, as they will be in default of a CCA request and can't enforce if that is still the case?

 

TBTH, the fact they didn't have the agreement when they started all this won't make a difference, IMHO - they now have the agreement, so can seek enforcement. (Whether they get it or not, is a different issue!) The best way to approach this is to defend on the facts known now, not argue you shouldn't have had to go this far until the agreement was found. (Use this to defend against costs, if you need to, at a later date)

 

PPI

 

Missold?

 

Any comments anyone???

[car2403]

...............took me a few mins to find it, but here it is:

 

Any comments anyone???

 

Sorry Hopeful/Rob, what was the question again?

 

I think the issue about insurances being in the total amount of the loan is an interesting one - this agreement states the amount of the the loan, then goes on to say "if you take PPI out, the amount of the loan will be £X", which is an amount different to the amount of the original loan and includes the insurance. What you could do here, is argue that the agreement isn't compliant, as the amount of loan, TCC, etc, isn't sufficiently stated as it's mentioned twice - once for the loan and once for the loan plus insurance. If a Judge agrees with you, that the agreement isn't sufficiently clear, he may say it's improperly executed. Of Course, he could allow enforcement by Court order, if he sees fit, but that's a different issue.

 

Weren't there other issues with this one, meaning it's unenforceable anyway? I can't remember from memory and don't have time to revisit the entire thread again. It may be an idea to recap the issues, referring to post # that cover them, as the thread is a bit of a monster now?

[Hopeful1]

Sorry Hopeful/Rob, what was the question again?

 

I think the issue about insurances being in the total amount of the loan is an interesting one - this agreement states the amount of the the loan, then goes on to say "if you take PPI out, the amount of the loan will be £X", which is an amount different to the amount of the original loan and includes the insurance. What you could do here, is argue that the agreement isn't compliant, as the amount of loan, TCC, etc, isn't sufficiently stated as it's mentioned twice - once for the loan and once for the loan plus insurance. If a Judge agrees with you, that the agreement isn't sufficiently clear, he may say it's improperly executed. Of Course, he could allow enforcement by Court order, if he sees fit, but that's a different issue.

 

Weren't there other issues with this one, meaning it's unenforceable anyway? I can't remember from memory and don't have time to revisit the entire thread again. It may be an idea to recap the issues, referring to post # that cover them, as the thread is a bit of a monster now?

 

Hi Chris.

 

I'm just looking to unpick as much as i can with the agreement. I am still trying to negotiate.

 

However, in the back of my mind i have to think this could still go to court.

 

This means i will definitely need to submit a defence which i need to make as strong as possible.

 

As well as querying the PPI, which i am arguing is mis-sold and am basing my negotiations on this, you previously questioned the type of agreement this is.

 

I had money in my hand as well as the money they paid to other creditors.

 

Basically i am fishing for whatever people to can see has some mileage. Any useful links to relevant legislation would be much appreciated

[robcag]

I think the issue about insurances being in the total amount of the loan is an interesting one - this agreement states the amount of the the loan, then goes on to say "if you take PPI out, the amount of the loan will be £X", which is an amount different to the amount of the original loan and includes the insurance. .....

 

Hi Chris and H1

 

Do either of you think it would be worthwhile kindly asking peterbard

for his expert opinion on this matter?

 

Cheers

Rob

[car2403]

Hi Chris and H1

 

Do either of you think it would be worthwhile kindly asking peterbard

for his expert opinion on this matter?

 

Cheers

Rob

 

Peter is our resident expert, but he hasn't been online consistently for a while - I think he has "issues" outside of CAG.

 

It's worth PM'ing him, but I'm not sure if you'll get a reply.

[robcag]

Peter is our resident expert, but he hasn't been online consistently for a while - I think he has "issues" outside of CAG.

 

It's worth PM'ing him, but I'm not sure if you'll get a reply.

 

Hi Chris and H1

 

Sorry , I forgot to reply here that I didn't PM Peter as I didn't want to intrude if he has other things to deal with (just in case you wondered).

 

Cheers

Rob

[quietlady]

Hi everyone - i've only been an 'on looker' but have visited various threads re weightmans over the past 2 - 3 months. It is really empowering to know that I'm not alone in trying to battle against them. (originally 2 credit cards with beneficial bank) - I have found some really useful info and have decided it is time to say 'hello' to you all and share my experience - so far - getting alittle complicated now.

 

Briefly it all started when Weightmans wanted me to agree to voluntary charging order - I did'nt want that so decided to CCA HFC bank - they have been unable to provided cca's and even stated in reply letters to me (enclosing copy statements and priority application forms) that they had been unable to locate the cca agreements but would forward in due course! I am still waiting but they have now assigned the accnts to Phoenix sarl who still want Weightmans to pursue court action. In the middle of it all now as many of your are too. I disputed amounts owed - it has got as far now as case just been transferred to my local court - just received notification that we got until 1 Sept to try and resolve matters.

 

Do you think I should CCA phoenix via weightmans now?

 

Any help and advice would be really appreciated.

[Hopeful1]

Hi Quietlady

 

I'm really glad you've joined us.

 

Have a look at this link 1st: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

...it will show you how to start your own thread. When you've done that, post a link here or let us know what the thread title is and we will support you there.

 

HFC battles are never short so we really need a thread of our own to avoid confusion

 

When you start your thread walk us through which documents you have received from who.

 

If you can scan things up for people to see but remove all personal details.

 

Let us know if there are charges, PPI etc

 

I shall look out for your thread.

 

Best wishes

[tinkerbell20]

subscribing

[Hopeful1]

Welcome to the madness, Tinkerbell20

[tinkerbell20]

Interesting thread

[Hopeful1]

Negotiations have now come to a halt as HFC will not relent with their wish for a charging order. Was hoping to come an agreement so i wouldn't have to try to get my head round all this legal stuff with everything else going on at home

[babybear39]

*hugs* Hopeful1...

[spiritgirl59]

Hiya H1

 

I'm so sorry to hear this

 

I can't think of anything helpful to say right now, but I just wanted you to know I am thinking of you.

 

With love & hugs

from SG x

[Hopeful1]

Thank you both. I still don't want to give in and am looking around for legal advice now, even if it's just to help me get my docs and arguments in place, i'll represent myself when the time comes.

 

Have a look at this post:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/payment-protection-insurance-ppi/154297-going-cout-hfc.html#post1656747

[robcag]

Hi H1

 

With regard to the points I brought up in post #305 above (and the subsequent discussion of that), I'm wondering if there is anything useful in this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/154129-have-i-just-spotted.html#post1659403

 

I think that link takes you to post #10 where noomill060 is offering a recording of a Radio 4 program which may be useful.

 

Sorry if it's a wild goose chase, but I can't quite get my head round all the possibilities of what should be included where (regarding charges for credit etc.)!

 

Cheers

Rob

[citizenB]

Hi Hopeful, I have been reading through your thread in the hope I could hijack some bits for another CAGer. It would appear you both have the same issues with weightmans !.

 

I have to admit to finding the comment from your local councillor amusing. Did you take this any further.?

 

 

speak to the "Loan Shark" advice line. While

Weigtman's/HFC are obviously not a "Loan Shark", if they act like one (i.e.

victimise/harass you for a non-legally enforceable debt, because of the

lack of paperwork) it might cause thme acute embarrassment being

treated like one and being investigated by the Loan Shark advice line.

 

 

[robcag]

Hi H1

 

Further to what I said in post #305 about your agreement (pasted below) and the PPI (ASU bit), and what I said at post #322 above.

 

I've just come across another thread by noomill060 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/155700-credit-agreements-void-if.html#post1659455 in which he has quoted the solicitor who is featuring on the Radio 4 recording which he has, quote:

To paraprase what the solicitor (Mr Keith Turner from Turner,Coulson Solicitors) is saying, the premiums are often added to the amount borrowed and interest then charged on them.

 

In many cases, he says:

 

"this will make the agreement unenforceable because the information will be in the wrong column, interest is added to the premium, which is ILLEGAL" (His choice of word) and in many cases, makes the agreement itself UNENFORCEABLE as well as making it possible to get back the PPI premium as well as all interest charged on it"

 

Do you think it would be worth looking into the "Insurance Loan" part of your agreement, as unless it can be shown that this is a legitimate way of arranging things so that you pay interest on the the PPI, it might be that you have been unlawfully charged interest on your PPI installments?

 

Agreement pasted below:

 

Cheers

Rob

[tinkerbell20]

coulod be worth looking at 8)