Diddled into giving back car HELP PLEASE!! bluestone/close credit management

[applecart]

Thanks Apple just being lazy.

 

The total credit figure is £10347.43

 

Repayments 1 '@ £303.67

35 @ £218

 

Last balloon payment of £4156.50

 

APR 8.1%

 

Total repaid on loan is £12,113.62

 

Total amount paid = £12,132 +£400 deposit = £12532 TAP

 

The £85 finance fee is included within the TCC as it should be as is the £100 deposit. The figures representing one half and one third of the agreement should be calculated from the TAP.

 

Which are correct sadly

 

Hi Dodgeball

 

It is not what the 'agreement' says that is important, or how the figures that show within it 'stack-up' to appear to be binding 'on it's face'...... It is what the 'Law' says should or should not be included in the agreement that causes it to be either legal and therefore enforceable...or not.....

 

I hope this helps you see where I am coming from in quoting directly from the CCA 1974 on this?

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Hi Dodgeball

 

It is not what the 'agreement' says that is important, or how the figures that show within it 'stack-up' to appear to be binding 'on it's face'...... It is what the 'Law' says should or should not be included in the agreement that causes it to be either legal and therefore enforceable...or not.....

 

I hope this helps you see where I am coming from in quoting directly from the CCA 1974 on this?

 

Apple

 

HI Applecart.

I fully understand the implications of misplaced fees and charges in terms of unenforceablity of the agreement under section 127)3) via section 65 , on breach of the requirement of section 9 of the act and the 1980 TCC regulations. These are itemized in the landscape case Wilson vs first trust and settled in the house of lords. Alls in Hurstanger.

 

However in the above agreement all fees and charges are included within the TCC for the purpose of the calculation of the APR, so it is unfortuantley compliant in that regard.

 

Believe me if there were a breach here I wold have spotted it.

[Peterbard]

Sorry apllelecart bit of a grouch this morning , I didnt't sleep well last night.

 

Yous eem to have arrived at a figure of £1342 for theh amount of interest, I presumed you calculated this using the stated APR, did you remember to factor in the irregular payment regime of this loan(ie the reduced contractual payment and then the balloon payment) this would account for the heightened interest repayable sum(i believe)

Edited June 17, 2013 by Dodgeball

[HadEnough]

Hi Applecart/ Dodgeball.

I have been away from pc so unable read you posts until now. They made for very interesting reading and I appreciate you putting yourselves out like this. I am a bit flummoxed with the maths as always however, to hear what you have to say about my rights under CCA spurs me on. I must say I was a bit at a loss as to what to reply back after received this 'Brush off' letter.

I have attached the letter again with some help although i had to get creative in order to hide personal details... hope they are readable this time... the attached file is the letter, the above one the vs sent to me again.

Edited June 17, 2013 by HadEnough
personal details left on letters

[applecart]

HI Applecart.

I fully understand the implications of misplaced fees and charges in terms of unenforceablity of the agreement under section 127)3) via section 65 , on breach of the requirement of section 9 of the act and the 1980 TCC regulations. These are itemized in the landscape case Wilson vs first trust and settled in the house of lords. Alls in Hurstanger.

 

However in the above agreement all fees and charges are included within the TCC for the purpose of the calculation of the APR, so it is unfortuantley compliant in that regard.

 

Believe me if there were a breach here I wold have spotted it.

 

 

Hi Dodgeball

 

It's been a while since I had to deal with this type of contractual issue.. so bear with me....

 

You do make a very valid point - As you will be aware ..... section 127 (3), (4) and (5) were repealed on 6th April 2007 by the CCA 2006..... and applies to any agreement entered into AFTER the 6th April 07.

 

Fortunately, HE's agreement was entered into in 2002 I believe - so Section 127 (3),(4) and (5) still apply.

 

This is because CCA 2006 was not made retrospective.

 

This means that the case law you cite Re 'Wilson' appears to me, based on the findings actually appear to work in HE's favor.

 

The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 come into play....so worth looking into....I've only looked at this in brief..

 

Schedule 2 The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2010 - makes reference to the Termination and Possession Statements - and has retrospective effect since 1st February 2011 as I understand it......Again, I have only looked at this in brief...

 

Please correct me should you disagree with the above - your in-put will no doubt continue to assist HE and others know for sure where they stand I think...After all, I only 'butted in' : )

 

Cheers

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Yes the unrnforceability provisions offered under section 127(3-4) of the act were repealed in 2007 for any agreement executed after 6th April .

 

The sanction would apply to the above agreement as you say,however i do not believe there is any such breach.

[applecart]

Yes the unrnforceability provisions offered under section 127(3-4) of the act were repealed in 2007 for any agreement executed after 6th April .

 

The sanction would apply to the above agreement as you say,however i do not believe there is any such breach.

 

Thanks for the main point Dodgeball, much appreciated....

 

Is there a particular reason why you do not believe there is any such breach?

 

I only ask because, your in-put will go a long way to assist HE and no doubt many others decide if there is merit in what I have posted herein...

 

 

Cheers

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Applecart/ Dodgeball.

I have been away from pc so unable read you posts until now. They made for very interesting reading and I appreciate you putting yourselves out like this. I am a bit flummoxed with the maths as always however, to hear what you have to say about my rights under CCA spurs me on. I must say I was a bit at a loss as to what to reply back after received this 'Brush off' letter.

I have attached the letter again with some help although i had to get creative in order to hide personal details... hope they are readable this time... the attached file is the letter, the above one the vs sent to me again.

 

Hi HE

 

I haven't had chance to look at the docs posted as yet....the laptop that I have loaned does not open pdf docs, so I have to wait until I get on to my own...please bear with me...

 

Also, best to wait for more in-put from those with up to the minute knowledge on these matters - ok?

 

 

Apple

[HadEnough]

Thats fine with me Applecart, the more information i get the more chance i have of getting my money back.

Need time to digest all of it too.

thanks again

[HadEnough]

Can anyone offer me anymore infornation on where to go from here please?

Would this be a case I could use a solicitor for if I feel I'm going to struggle with the legal arguments?

Feel a bit out of my depth...

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Can anyone offer me anymore infornation on where to go from here please?

Would this be a case I could use a solicitor for if I feel I'm going to struggle with the legal arguments?

Feel a bit out of my depth...

 

I think you might feel happier with face to face help, the CAB could help you and may have a solicitor on tap.

[HadEnough]

thanks.

would there be any issues with cab over the amount of time that has lapsed since the agreement ended?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

thanks.

would there be any issues with cab over the amount of time that has lapsed since the agreement ended?

 

I would not think so this is an on going dispute.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

 

 

The circumstances posted by you appear to show that your right to terminate was concealed from you.

 

Apple

 

How do you conceal the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from someone?

 

The OP is heading for an expensive fall if he/she takes some of the advice being dispensed on this thread.

[Peterbard]

How do you conceal the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from someone?

 

You fail to tell them of their statutory rights under the act, happens all the time sadly.

 

The OP is heading for an expensive fall if he/she takes some of the advice being dispensed on this thread.

 

 

I don't see how the OP actions so far could cost the her any money, a couple of stamps perhaps.

 

Personally I was not aware that the agreement had gone past its termination date until late on in the thread, however it was worth a shot.

 

Now I think the OP should try and limit the damage by challenging the sums claimed.

[applecart]

How do you conceal the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from someone?

 

The OP is heading for an expensive fall if he/she takes some of the advice being dispensed on this thread.

 

Hi Gaston,

 

• By not including within the agreement a termination right at the third way mark
  
• By not advising the OP that there was a right to terminate instead of voluntary surrender
  
• By selling the car and then making the OP pay the 'difference' under the agreement
  
• By fudging the figures of the agreement to make it seem the OP owed more
  

 

Need I go on?

 

To suggest that the OP is heading for an 'expensive fall' is to suggest that the OP has no consumer right to seek redress....

 

The GaG, as I understand it - is here to assist consumers understand where their rights lie...

 

If you do not believe the OP has any such right - then, it's always helpful - not only for the OP - but for others viewing the thread - if you spell out and say WHY....??

 

Apple

[applecart]

I don't see how the OP actions so far could cost the her any money, a couple of stamps perhaps.

 

Personally I was not aware that the agreement had gone past its termination date until late on in the thread, however it was worth a shot.

 

Now I think the OP should try and limit the damage by challenging the sums claimed.

 

That's the point exactly - she has a right to challenge all the sums claimed under the agreement - this is a consumer right - the OP is fortunate in that the agreement was entered into before section 127 (3) & (4) were repealed.

 

My thoughts on this is to keep within the spirit of the CaG and assist the OP frame the contention to take to a CAB as party to the suggestion posted by Brigadier2JCS...

 

Apple

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I for one would like some explanation of Gastons statement.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Hi Gaston,

 

• By not including within the agreement a termination right at the third way mark
  
• By not advising the OP that there was a right to terminate instead of voluntary surrender
  
• By selling the car and then making the OP pay the 'difference' under the agreement
  
• By fudging the figures of the agreement to make it seem the OP owed more
  

 

Need I go on?

 

To suggest that the OP is heading for an 'expensive fall' is to suggest that the OP has no consumer right to seek redress....

 

The GaG, as I understand it - is here to assist consumers understand where their rights lie...

 

If you do not believe the OP has any such right - then, it's always helpful - not only for the OP - but for others viewing the thread - if you spell out and say WHY....??

 

Apple

 

Have a look at my posts on the first page of this thread. To suggest the right to terminate has been concealed from the OP is ludicrous. How does "not telling" equate to "concealing"? If I don't tell my kids about the moon does that mean I am actively hiding its existence from them? The fact is that the right to terminate is a matter of law and everyone is deemed to know the law. You can't conceal a matter of public knowledge from anyone.

 

Need I go on?

 

Bottomt line is that the OP's cause of action arose more than 6 years ago and any claim for wrongful enforcement or breach of statutory duty is long gone.

[Peterbard]

There is HUGE difference between, "not telling " and instructing someone that they must pursue a course of action which is not only against their best interests, but bypasses there statutory rights.

 

Oh I dare say you will go on

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

There is HUGE difference between, "not telling " and instructing someone that they must pursue a course of action which is not only against their best interests, but bypasses there statutory rights.

 

Oh I dare say you will go on

 

WHOOSH!

 

I'll try and make this simple. Yes, the OP had an excellent claim because of the agent's behaviour BUT HAS WAITED TOO LONG TO BRING IT.

 

Hope this helps.

[Peterbard]

Why ?

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Let's say agent lied about options meaning vehicle wrongly surrendered. OP has good claim against creditor for negligent misstatement, breach of contract, breach of statutory duty, whatever. The limitation period is 6 years. What is being suggested is that because the OP's rights were concealed from him, limitation is extended. Wrong. The rights in question are a matter of law, you can't conceal the law from anyone as evryone is deemed to know the law. You cannot misrepresent the law.

 

So the OP is shafted on limitation.

[Peterbard]

Oh I see action in tort. Well there is section 32 of course.

 

But since the agreement would not have been correctly terminated it would not be relevant, can't terminate an active CCA agreement without a Default notice, kind of the whole point.

 

Anyway none of this is helping the OP.

 

The agreement had gone past its term sadly.

[Peterbard]

Unsubscribing