Weightmans/HFC County Court Claim

[Hopeful1]

Hi Rob

 

You are so very kind bringing all this info to me.

 

The point i'm at at the moment is that i have negotiated a good sum off the amount being claimed through the court.

 

The difficulty is they want a charging order as well, which hacks me off no end. However, this will be a lot kinder on the old credit file than if i go to court and end up with a CCJ.

 

If i could be confident of the agreement being declared unenforceable though what a coup that would be........

 

Oh geez, everytime i think i know which way i'm going

 

(Hi ya Tinkerbell )

[Hopeful1]

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.?

 

Hi Hun! Yes HFC problems are very repetitive. All the hassle will be worth it if it helps someone else. I never did follow up the loan shark palava as they turned up with the docs.

 

I am awaiting the outcome from the legal complaints service, which the original advisor has passed to someone higher up for a final decision, hopefully i won't have to wait too much longer for the outcome. Once this whole thing is settled, one way or the other, i shall still consider it unfinished business. This lot have really got my back up.

 

What goes around comes around is a favourite saying of mine. I shall be doing my best to make the 'comes around' bit happen sooner rather than later

[robcag]

 

If i could be confident of the agreement being declared unenforceable though what a coup that would be........I guess it would be helpful to get some expert opinion on the legality of the 'Insurance Loan' and interest consequently being charged on the PPI. Didn't you say you were seeking the advice of a solicitor (bearing in mind they don't often know much about all this consumer law stuff)?

It might be worth PM'ing noomill060 and asking him to send you the Radio 4 recording so you can listen yourself (I PM'd him yesterday but mis-typed the rarely-used email address I tried to give him , so I've had to repeat the request )

 

Oh geez, everytime i think i know which way i'm going

 

 

Never say die!

 

Cheers

Rob

[citizenB]

Never say die!

 

Cheers

Rob

 

I agree with that.

[Hopeful1]

Ok. It's a long shot but i've emailed a few sols with a very brief summary of events and the info Rob has shared above. I shall see if anyone's mad enough to get back to me on Monday!!

 

If you don't ask and all that

[robcag]

Hi H1

 

I was just scrolling down through the CCA1974 looking for something when my eye caught the words '18 Multiple agreements', so I had a quick look. I'm not going to pretend I understand what it said, but I've copied s.18 and s.19 (Linked transactions) below so you can check it out and decide whether there's anything worth persuing or bringing to the attention of someone more suited to give advice. ;-)

 

 

18 Multiple agreements

 

(1) This section applies to an agreement (a “multiple agreement”) if its terms are such as—

 

(a) to place a part of it within one category of agreement mentioned in this Act, and another part of it within a different category of agreements so mentioned, or within a category of agreement not so mentioned, or

 

(b) to place it, or a part of it, within two or more categories of agreement so mentioned.

 

 

(2) Where a part of an agreement falls within subsection (1), that part shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a separate agreement.

 

(3) Where an agreement falls within subsection (1)(b), it shall be treated as an agreement in each of the categories in question, and this Act shall apply to it accordingly.

 

(4) Where under subsection (2) a part of a multiple agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement, the multiple agreement shall (with any necessary modifications) be construed accordingly; and any sum payable under the multiple agreement, if not apportioned by the parties, shall for the purposes of proceedings in any court relating to the multiple agreement be apportioned by the court as may be requisite.

 

(5) In the case of an agreement for running-account credit, a term of the agreement allowing the credit limit to be exceeded merely temporarily shall not be treated as a separate agreement or as providing fixed-sum credit in respect of the excess.

 

(6) This Act does not apply to a multiple agreement so far as the agreement relates to goods if under the agreement payments are to be made in respect of the goods in the form of rent (other than a rent-charge) issuing out of land.

 

 

 

 

19 Linked transactions

 

(1) A transaction entered into by the debtor or hirer, or a relative of his, with any other person (“the other party”), except one for the provision of security, is a linked transaction in relation to an actual or prospective regulated agreement (the “principal agreement”) of which it does not form part if—

 

(a) the transaction is entered into in compliance with a term of the principal agreement; or

 

(b) the principal agreement is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and the transaction is financed, or to be financed, by the principal agreement; or

 

© the other party is a person mentioned in subsection (2), and a person so mentioned initiated the transaction by suggesting it to the debtor or hirer, or his relative, who enters into it—

 

(i) to induce the creditor or owner to enter into the principal agreement, or

 

(ii) for another purpose related to the principal agreement, or

 

(iii) where the principal agreement is a restricted-use credit agreement, for a purpose related to a transaction financed, or to be financed, by the principal agreement.

 

 

(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1)© are—

 

(a) the creditor or owner, or his associate;

 

(b) a person who, in the negotiation of the transaction, is represented by a credit-broker who is also a negotiator in antecedent negotiations for the principal agreement;

 

© a person who, at the time the transaction is initiated, knows that the principal agreement has been made or contemplates that it might be made.

 

 

(3) A linked transaction entered into before the making of the principal agreement has no effect until such time (if any) as that agreement is made.

 

(4) Regulations may exclude linked transactions of the prescribed description from the operation of subsection (3).

 

 

 

 

The next section (20) is 'Total charge for credit' which I won't copy here.

 

I hope there is something in there that you can use, just sorry I don't understand it!

 

 

Cheers

Rob

 

 

PS Thanks for the rep

[Hopeful1]

Well, well, well

 

I have finally found some discrepancies! Hopefully quite significant ones too.

 

For very obvious reasons i cannot say what on here. I have someone looking at my paperwork tonight and they will be getting back to me hopefully in the morning.

 

I hope i have cracked it - fingers crossed

[robcag]

Glad to hear something's looking good for you at last H1 .

 

I'm looking forward to your revelation of what your breakthrough is when the time is right.

 

Sorry to be nosey, but can you tell us if this possible discovery is by a CAG member or one of the solicitors you emailed?

 

Good luck for a positive result with the paperwork!

 

Cheers

Rob

[babybear39]

Fingers, toes and everything else crossable crossed for you H1 *hugs*

[citizenB]

Well, well, well

 

I have finally found some discrepancies! Hopefully quite significant ones too.

 

For very obvious reasons i cannot say what on here. I have someone looking at my paperwork tonight and they will be getting back to me hopefully in the morning.

 

I hope i have cracked it - fingers crossed

 

Fingers, toes and everything else crossable crossed for you H1 *hugs*

 

Oh yes, mine are crossed as well Hopeful..

[spiritgirl59]

....and mine

[cashins]

I hope i have cracked it - fingers crossed

 

Hope you have as well.

 

Good luck

 

David

[tinkerbell20]

Any news - suspense is killing me lol!

[Hopeful1]

Hope you have as well.

 

Good luck

 

David

 

Any news - suspense is killing me lol!

 

 

Hi both - thanks for looking in

 

Yes, it seems i have some mileage. I have a meeting later in the week to go over the paperwork. At the moment i really am hopeful

 

I'm sorry to be so vague, but need to be discreet about what i post for the time being. Prying eyes and all that.

 

Once this is concluded, whether it's in my favour or not, i will post everything up.

 

[Hopeful1]

Gosh it's been a long time! I thought i ought to post a little update. Nothing exciting unfortunately! It is still rumbling along with my solicitor still trying to negotiate. The message from W'mans does seem to be that they would prefer to settle out of court, so we shall see. The case isn't quite so clear cut now with the various bits of conflicting paperwork that i have managed to get my hands on. So i don't think they would breeze the case in court as they 1st expected, especially now i have a solicitor on board.

 

I am lucky i have managed to find the money for a sol as it is a relief to have someone else handling it. He is very understanding and trying to keep his costs minimal. As i say, the stress he has relieved makes it all worth it.

 

Best wishes everyone

[citizenB]

Sounds pretty positive, Hopeful. Still have my fingers crossed for you.

[babybear39]

Sounds pretty positive, Hopeful. Still have my fingers crossed for you.

 

Me too

[cashins]

Thats good news!

 

Wonder if whoever is handling this in Weightmans has had a visit from the Oh Sh*t fairy, as in 'Oh sh*t, we could lose this in court!'

 

David

[Hopeful1]

Thats good news!

 

Wonder if whoever is handling this in Weightmans has had a visit from the Oh Sh*t fairy, as in 'Oh sh*t, we could lose this in court!'

 

David

 

Oh David i really can't understand why you're so cynical!

 

Hi CB and BB thank you for looking in (and clicking BB ) it's good to know you're looking out for me

[Hopeful1]

Well, i think this situation is close to concluding, but not on the positive note i had hoped. I cannot seem to get away from demands for a voluntary charging order without risking going to court and incurring higher costs.

 

As most know i have had a solicitor deal with this for me over recent months and i have had the advice from others as a 'favour'. All seem to think that despite the descrepancies found by me and my friends on here, i would not have much success in court, but will end up with huge costs to pay.

 

I have also discovered that all the complaints i have made about Weightmans have been unsuccessful.

 

I have tried so hard to deal with this and to avoid upsetting my hubby because of his depression etc. It now looks like i will have to tell him anyway as we are joint mortgage holders. My eyes are burning from crying. I feel so disappointed. The negative outcome of my complaint to legal services has hit me hard. I do not have any right to appeal. I think there may be one further step i can take, but i will look at this another day when i don't feel so emotional about it all. The report doesn't detail Weightmans responses but i can see glaring descrepancies. I won't say anymore as i do not want to risk accusations of libel.

 

I will obviously post when a final conclusion has been reached to this unjust, sorry affair.

[citizenB]

Oh dear hopeful, I am sorry to hear this. {{{}}}}

[car2403]

I think you should consider PM'ing someone (site admin perhaps) to get some advice on this further...

 

Hope you're feeling better about this soon.

[cashins]

Sorry to hear of your setback and the upset it is causing.

 

Think you're right to 'step back' and look again another day and I am sure there are plenty of people on here willing to help.

 

You are not alone.

 

David

[Hopeful1]

Thank you as always everyone. I feel a little better this morning and know i will feel better again once i've talked to hubby.

 

I need to put this whole thing down to a bad experience. I've certainly learnt a lot more about money and credit and won't be conned so easily in the future. Over recent months i've been working hard to clear debts. I will then focus on HFC and clear it as soon as i can. It is the only way i will ever be rid of them.

 

It disappoints me immensely that these people can weedle out of everything but i am a great believer in what goes around comes around. They will get theirs some day.

 

In the meantime i will still be looking for opportunities to highlight the behaviour of both companies. I may be clinging on by my fingernails now, but there's still a bit of me that won't let go of these 2 barstewards completely.....not quite yet, anyway

 

Love and best wishes all x

[cashins]

Have you seen Leedsangle thread: You and yours researching Behavior by DCAs.

 

David