First plus loan for everest windows and a charging order - can i now Cca?

[pedross]

Hi exasp

 

This is a strange and unusual story if I am reading it correctly (I don't think I can be).

 

Are you saying that you took out an unsecured loan in Oct 2002 and made every payment on time but Eversheds took you to court and got a CCJ and a charging order. You must have missed a number of payments to get into that situation.

 

Are you then saying that you took out another loan in march 2003 and when you signed the agreement you did not put the date in the space under your signature which says 'date of signature' If the First Plus Rep then put a much earlier date it could well be fraud. But that is a very serious allegation and if you are correct and have some way of proving it then it may well be unenforceable.

 

But if you signed the application in Oct 2002 but the laon did not commence until march 2003 that is a different matter.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

I don't think Bills of Exchange Act will help you.

 

It would apply to a cheque or some similar type of promise to pay.

[pedross]

The second agreement is a replacement. A replacement for what?

 

I really cannot work out what has happened here. I take it that you had a loan for windows and doors and then 6 months later you had another loan for windows and doors but First Plus marked the agreement ' replacement'

 

Only you and First Plus can know what has happened and if you don't I would personally write to First Plus and ask them to explain.

 

Others may disagree but whatever happened would not make it correct to add a date of signature which was not the actual date of signature.

 

I suspect that both agreements had the same agreement number and the 2 loans were added together but thats an educated guess.

[pedross]

You need to check both agreements very carefully. Every word. All of the financial information especially A - G on the top right. If there is a difference the answer will probably be there.

 

We seem to be making progress its just working out why they did it and you may well have a case.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

So correct me if I am wrong.

 

The first agreement (ag 1) is for windows & doors you ordered for a house you jointly owned with your wife (prop A)

 

The second agreement (ag 2) which you do not have but you have a copy of a replacement agreement (ag 3) which you did not sign or date. This related to windows & doors you ordered 5 months later for a different property (prop B ) which presumably did not belong to you.

 

You did not keep up the payments on ag 2 so first plus took you to court using ag 3 and obtained a charging order on prop A.

 

Thats how I read the situation and if we can establish the facts based on that scenario then it may get clearer still. There are still some questions which could shed some light but I will not post them on the open forum.

[pedross]

OK so did the second agreement you signed at your new address have the new address or the wife's address.

 

 

It would appear to me that the two agreements you posted up may have identical information on each. In which case are you sure that it is in fact the first agreement you signed that is on a debt mgt plan.

 

You need to read my post 33 again and do as I say and post the reply.

 

We need the facts absolutely accurate to resolve this.

[pedross]

Hi exasp

 

You do seem a little confused as to what has happened here which is making it really difficult although I am managing to work out some facts. This is what you said in an earlier post:

 

Two home imrovement unsecured loans with first plus, one taken out Oct 2002 and one March 2003. The first loan taken out was handed to Eversheds(despite not missing a single payment for nearly 5 years) who succesfully obtained a Charging Order on my property.

 

and this is what you said in the post above:

 

In answer to your questions...

• Both agreements contain the same address
  
• The CO was obtained on the second agreement with 'replacement' wrote on it
  
• The first agreement is still with first plus and being paid through a DMP
  

The charging order is for £6500 so there must be court documents to show how the figure is arrived at. The first loan was for about £8,000 and you paid it for 5 years at least so if there was about £2500 costs the figures would match.

 

The second loan was for somewhere between £2000 & £6000 so it is unlikely that a charging order based on that would total £6500.

 

I am surprised you do not remember roughly what you ordered. Did you in fact agree a loan for the amount shown on the first agreement.

 

The next question is the agreements 2 & 3. If you in fact signed an agreement for windows on prop 2 did they actually put the property address on the agreement and how much was it actually for. The Everest completion report suggests that the value was £3079 and First plus were paying £2019. What was the 2.5% credit card charge and did you recieve cash back after 90 days and if so how much.

 

The final question (piece of the jigsaw) was did you or someone else request additional windows while the work was in progress.

 

I know it is a while ago but something is missing from what you are telling me. You should know roughly what happened if not actual figures.

[pedross]

I think we are on the right track.

 

There is definately something wrong with the agreements based on the information you have provided. Now you have provided the court forms it clearly shows that it is ..102 that the CO relates to and if you only borrowed £2019 why was a fake replacement produced.

 

It will be interesting to see the Everest invoices when they arrive. I am not sure what we can do in the meantime, probably just wait.

 

The probable situation is that the windows belong to the property owner and the debt belongs to the person who is party to the agreement, you. The windows were provided by Everest and the money by First plus, two seperate issues. But something else has also happened and that is where the mystery is.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

It is difficult to know what to say.

 

We have 3 situations now.

 

1. First Plus have 2 agreements which do not actually tally with the everest invoices.

 

2. Everest have 2 invoices which suggest that someone was aware that you were buying windows for a house you did not own on inv 2 and something is not right.

 

3. You are completely unaware of the prices of the orders and your memory is thousands of pounds out. Are you sure that you did not order both lots at the same time?

 

Did you actually pay £2000+ deposit on the 1st order & £1090 on the second?

I have an idea what to do but it will not help if there is information regarding the orders that I am not aware about.

 

If there is anything that you do not want to post PM me.

[pedross]

HI Exasp

 

I have not had time to post my thoughts but will do. In the meantime I don't think its a good idea tracking down the everest rep from 7 years ago just yet I would wait and decide the way forward first.

[pedross]

Hi Exasp

Looking at the whole situation on face value I believe the best thing to do to start with is to write to Everest and ask them to clarify certain details. The reason for this is that they are the least likely people to have done something dodgy. Maybe there is a simple explanation and when they point out what they have on record it might throw some light on what has happened and point out the next step.

I would not send a copy of the installation report, just the letter, but I would suggest something along the following lines:

Everest

15 September 2009

Dear Sirs

Thank you for the copy invoices recently supplied to me. However, due to personal circumstances, I need to clarify certain details regarding the goods you supplied and the prices charged. I would therefore be obliged if you could clarify several basic points which are as follows:

Invoice ending 120

• Date of order
  
• Date of installation
  
• Installation address
  
• Itemised list of goods installed
  
• Amount of any discount or incentive deducted
  
• Amount of any deposit received by you
  
• Amount received from First Plus in settlement
  
• Method of payment e.g. credit card / cheque / bank transfer
  
• Clarification of the comment shown on the invoice ‘No service until balance is paid’
  
• Confirmation why the amount shown varies from the balance on the installation and completion report
  

Invoice ending 640

• Date of order
  
• Date of installation
  
• Installation address
  
• Itemised list of goods installed
  
• Amount of any discount or incentive deducted
  
• Amount of any deposit received by you
  
• Amount received from First Plus in settlement
  

I trust that this is basic information held on your files and thank you, in anticipation, for your assistance in this matter.

Yours faithfully

Exasperated

[pedross]

Hi,

The 'replacement' agreement what would it have been for?

I know I should know the answer to that but I am afraid I don't

Thanks

Exasp

 

Replacement relates to the credit agreement and we have not challenged that yet.

 

As far as we know Everest have no knowledge of the credit agreement so we need to wait and see how they comment about about the invoice to determine the relevence of 'replacement'.

 

It may be that the order was changed as I suggested previously but that does not mean you took out a new agreement. You can 'verbally' agree to buy extra goods but you cannot 'verbally' arrange a new credit agreement as far as I am aware. For the agreement to be correct it must comply with the CCA.

 

One step at a time if we are to succeed.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

Hi Exasp

 

We seem to be getting closer to putting together a good argument. Did they enclose another copy of either agreement.

 

You basically need to look through each page and do what you have already started to do, check for any comments that add value to what we are attempting to do. You will not find much but the odd point like the one you have found is valuable.

 

We then wait for the reply off Everest and compare what they say to what we understand that First Plus have done. You can then write to First Plus and ask them to explain the areas we are not happy with and not tell them what everest have said. You should not play your hand with FP yet because we are still not completely clear what has been supplied. When we know that it might be clear what has happened. The reply from First Plus will determine the next step.

 

At the moment it does look as if the amounts you borrowed are not the same as the agreements. What does stand out is that you said property 1 had more windows fitted than property 2 in which case is 640 prop 2 and 120 prop 1 which does appear to be the way its working out. We will have to wait for everest.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

Hi Exasp

 

Its getting clearer but the full picture is still not completely clear.

 

You said on post 39 that the first installation (640) was quite large and the second property was less but not according to the invoices. Do the windows and doors tally up with what was fitted to each property.

 

It looks to me as if 120 is property 1 and 640 is property 2.

 

If that is the case could it be that you only ordered a few windows at property 1 to start with and was the order increased before fitting. I take it that you were not at the property when the windows were fitted.

 

The next thing that stands out is that you have an agreement for £10200 which appears to relate to property 2 and which you admit has your signature I believe. Why did you sign an agreement for that amount when it clearly is far more than either one single installation. Did they add the additional windows from the first order onto the second order or something similar. Did First Plus send you the copy you posted up earlier.

 

To sum up it appears that the charging order is for 120 / prop 1

The DMP is for 640 / prop 2 - but where is the correct agreement for £6444 (640)

 

A lot of questions to think about and answer so that we can move forward.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

I meant who sent the copy agreement for £10,200 in post 39

 

Plus just to confirm - is it possibly your signature on agreement 120 (replacement)

 

The female everest rep must have asked why you were ordering another set of windows 6 weeks later how did the conversation go?

 

When I know the answers I will do another letter for you

[pedross]

Hi Exasp

 

You have asked me by pm to look at this thread and you have posted information regarding the main thread that you did not tell me.

 

dx is obviously a very aware person looking at the posts and has made some very valid points.

 

I did not know you were communicating with First Plus trying to do deals. I am moving along a very defined path and any other route could scupper the plan.

 

You need to get the site team to merge the threads and have patience.

 

Too many cooks etc as dx spotted straight away.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

Hi Exasp

 

Sorry about the dalay in getting back to you. Check out the details below to see if they are factually correct in your opinion.

 

If so the next step is to write to First Plus and say something along the following lines:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Re Agreements No. ..........640 and .....120

 

I would bring your attention to the above agreements which relate to finance for the purchase of New Windows. These agreements were signed at a time when I was experiencing personal and financial problems and I was in a vulnerable position.

 

You have recently supplied me with copies of agreements bearing the above numbers which do appear to contain my signature. However, the figures do not accurately relate to goods purchased or the circumstances and the dates on the invoices do not support the facts at the time.

 

Although I have payment arrangements in place for the agreements I agreed to them under duress. I also realise that you have taken legal action on one of the agreements, but again I was unsure of the situation and not confident enough at the time to challenge your actions.

 

Now I am feeling better I have started to look into the matter and have taken advice. This has helped me to understand the documents that you have presented to me and to realise that I have been negligent in not dealing with this matter before.

 

I therefore request that you investigate my concerns, review the agreement details, check the agreements against goods actually supplied and also investigate why the dates on the agreements do not relate to the actual dates they were potentially signed. Furthermore, I would be obliged if you could confirm why you believe that I am legally liable for the two agreements.

 

In view of the serious nature of my concerns I request that you reply within 14 days.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

E

Edited October 4, 2009 by pedross

[pedross]

PD,

Thanks again for your time,I'll send it and let you know what they say

DD,

On the agreement it states loan amount as 10,200 when the loan is in fact 4k. This is confirmed by the fact the other agreement states loan amount 6040 and that is what the loan was.

It is therefore incorrect on the first agreement

Exasp

 

I know Exasp

 

This agreement is wrong. This is why I suggested that you sent for the orders from Everest so that we could work out what had happened, which of course we now have.

 

However, the next step is to resolve the problem in the best way that we can for you. There is obviously a problem with the agreement and the actual loan amount but if we storm in with that we will not have any leaverage with the other one, which does appear to be right. FP appear to have made an almighty error on the one and on top of that someone has added dates to the agreements which are incorrect.

 

Therefore, I suggested you send the letter above to let them know that you are aware there is an error and that it is serious. When they reply it will lead us to our next move but I do not want to post my thoughts on what may happen in case we have 'guests'. Having said that I do think that we may be looking to write off at least one of the agreements.

 

The new information you have posted is a little late but better than never and appears to back up my thoughts that you changed the value of the order. I need to study the details to form the full picture which I will do. My first thoughts are:

 

Do you or did you personally own property 2 because it states on the document below that you did. In which case you owned 2 properties at the time.

 

Did it contain your signature

 

Are those your initials against the prices

 

It says on the top right 2 of 2 so where is 1 of 2

 

That will do for starters but I think I can see what has happened now. It was a hard slog but I am fairly sure that I am right.

 

Time will tell.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

PD,

As the agreements do not state the total amount including credit but the loan amount and interest does this make them unenforceable

Exasp

 

I would not worry about that at this stage, we have got bigger fish to fry.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

Standard reply don't worry

 

It has now made the situation clearer still. I will let you know more and do the next letter as soon as possible - snowed under at minute

 

P

[pedross]

Right here I am

 

This is so complicated but getting clearer. As we now know the agreement we have issues with is the one ending in 640. We have been working on the basis that the agreement you posted up earlier for £10k + is the problem. But it is not a valid agreement and is not the basis of the debt that First Plus are claiming.

 

So you need to write to them, thank them for the letter of 8 October 2009 state that you are not questioning how the loan was sold but the exisitence of an actual agreement. Ask them for a copy of the agreement ....640

 

Yours Faithfully etc.

 

 

If there is no agreement that will solve the one problem if there is the saga continues. But so far you have 3 agreements and there should be 4 so we need to establish the facts before deciding what to do next.

 

Pedross

[pedross]

Thats ok

 

The aim is to find out if they have another agreement signed in december, if not theres your answer with regards to this one.

 

With regards to the agreement ending 120 I got the impression that you made 5 years payments but according to the charging order you paid very little.

 

There might be an issue with the agreements but there was no point looking at that until we knew which 2 agreements out of a possible 4 we were talking about and which one related to which property. Nearly there.

Edited October 13, 2009 by pedross

[pedross]

The letter above is a direct answer to the latest letter you sent. (post 92)

 

I suggested a letter (post 91) but you tried to speed things up and changed it. I tried to tell you more haste less speed.

 

As you know you sent me a pm and I asked some questions you have not answered.

 

You now have to write again and say thanks for the letter but can they explain why the agreement you sent does not match the amount that they claim you borrowed and they have conveniently ignored that fact.

[pedross]

Good

 

You could also add:

 

You claim that I signed the agreement in September 2002 and I am legally bound by its terms in which case I request that you inform me if you did in fact lend me the actual amount itemised.

 

P

[pedross]

Thats fine

 

Puts a direct question to them and means they will have to check the records. Whichever way they answer we can come back at them. They may produce new evidence and if they are going to we need to see it sooner rather than later.

 

We have no choice but to do it that way as we need to get the facts right before we can challenge them.

 

P