smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Yes , i cannot see any other agreement over on Cag, could you put that on here also, was that for the original 16k ?

What was the date on the above letters and the above agreement ?

Can you confirm that you have never requested a loan for a car(not even the original one), and that the money advanced (the 1K)was used to pay off an overdraft in your Lloyd account. Do you have bank statements to support this ?

[mystery1]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

The signatures on the agreement and ppi seem very different to me ?


M1

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

I can't understand the clause that says the loan must be used for the purchase of a vehicle. This would make it restricted use, but it was not used for this purpose it was used to pay off an overdraft.

Very confusing.

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Yes , i cannot see any other agreement over on Cag, could you put that on here also, was that for the original 16k ?

What was the date on the above letters and the above agreement ?

Can you confirm that you have never requested a loan for a car(not even the original one), and that the money advanced (the 1K)was used to pay off an overdraft in your Lloyd account. Do you have bank statements to support this ?

first letter date 19 november 2008
second letter 26 march 20013
3rd letter was printed off on 25/3/20013 time 10.36.33
agreement as no date on it or a printed of date
THE AGREENT I SCANED AS NO START DATE NOR A END DATE

I CONFIRM I NEVER RQUESTED A LOAN FOR A CAR
THE 16K LOAN WAS CONSOLIDATION LOAN
THE MONEY ADVANCED WAS USED TO PAY HALIFAX OVERDRAFT OF
THINK WAS MY ACCOUNT THE 1K WENT INTO BUT NOT 100% SURE COULD HAVE BIN WIFES ITS THAT LONG AGO

MY BMP STATRTED SEPT 2005 LEFT THEM OCTOBER 2006
LAST PAYMENT FROM MY ACCOUNT THINK IT WAS SEPT 2007
BYROM & KEELEY LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE FOLD TRYED SOME NUMBERS AS SOME COMPANYS HAVE BOUGHT SOME OF THERE ACCOUNTS

ALL OUR DEBTS ARE STILL THE SAME BALLANCE AS THEY WAS IN 2005 DIFFRENT COLLECTER SEND LETTERS DMP THEY PAY THEM TO BE HONSEST AT 1 POINT I DIDNT KNOW WHO OWNED THE DEBT WHO WAS COLLECTING IT USED TO GET 2 TO 3 CALLS A DAY FROM COLLECTER SO I CHANGED MY NUMBER TO A DIFF XDIRECTORY AND COLLECTORS ARE STILL PHONEING LOL BE BACK ON LINE BETWEEN 9.30...AND 10 .30 TO NITE

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

OK making a start, there are many on here much more skilled at drafting deference so please, do point out ANY errors, or any improvements to the form.

Do you agree with the facts here Smith ?

The defendant denies any knowledge of making an agreement to borrow £1000 from the claimant’

The agreement supplied as being a true copy of the executed agreement under section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act appears to be a fixed sum restricted use agreement for the purchase of a car. The defendant denies ever purchasing a car and as a matter of fact neither he nor his partner can drive or possess a driving licence.

The claimant is put to strict proof that any sums were forwarded to a third party for the purchase of a car as stated in the agreement document.

Notwithstanding the above the defendant draws attention to the defects in the agreement.

The agreement is undated. The defendant therefore puts the claimant to strict proof that this agreement was properly signed at the time of the execution and before the issuance of any loan.

The agreement does not comply with the requirements of the consumer credit act 1974 in that the repayment dates are not itemized and failure to state repayment dates and details is a breach of section 61 of the act in that it is a prescribed term and renders the agreement irredeemably unenforceable via section 65 and 127(3) of the fore mentioned act.

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Next points are the DN, the SB and the assignment issues.

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

OK making a start, there are many on here much more skilled at drafting deference so please, do point out ANY errors, or any improvements to the form.

Do you agree with the facts here Smith ?

The defendant denies any knowledge of making an agreement to borrow £1000 from the claimant’

The agreement supplied as being a true copy of the executed agreement under section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act appears to be a fixed sum restricted use agreement for the purchase of a car. The defendant denies ever purchasing a car and as a matter of fact neither he nor his partner can drive or possess a driving licence.

The claimant is put to strict proof that any sums were forwarded to a third party for the purchase of a car as stated in the agreement document.

Notwithstanding the above the defendant draws attention to the defects in the agreement.

The agreement is undated. The defendant therefore puts the claimant to strict proof that this agreement was properly signed at the time of the execution and before the issuance of any loan.

The agreement does not comply with the requirements of the consumer credit act 1974 in that the repayment dates are not itemized and failure to state repayment dates and details is a breach of section 61 of the act in that it is a prescribed term and renders the agreement irredeemably unenforceable via section 65 and 127(3) of the fore mentioned act.

yes thats ok

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

yes thats ok

Sorry smith I need more than that from you, any thing incorrect, anything I have missed regarding the agreement. Any questions about what I have left out, Anything you don't understand. Sorry to sound abrupt but I am trying to help.

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

Sorry smith I need more than that from you, any thing incorrect, anything I have missed regarding the agreement. Any questions about what I have left out, Anything you don't understand. Sorry to sound abrupt but I am trying to help.

carnt see nothing incorrect, dont seem to have missed anything out,shouldnt we mention the 16k loand i signed, for and 1k advanced to bank account ,unfair debt collections ,,think thats it .and thanks i know your trying to help

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

carnt see nothing incorrect, dont seem to have missed anything out,shouldnt we mention the 16k loand i signed, for and 1k advanced to bank account ,unfair debt collections ,,think thats it .and thanks i know your trying to help

no default letter from black horse or good bye letters

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

no default letter from black horse or good bye letters

and that the ballance would be disputed

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

It seems to me that the gist of this case is.

That LLoyds advanced the money(16k) now when you cancelled they made a mistake because they had already advanced the money to settle your wife's Halifax overdraft and could not reclaim it.

You then made a verbal agreement with them to repay the money at 50 a week. When you stopped paying this they found they had no agreement , so they had to botch one up.

This is why it is inconsistent and mentions a car and is not dated etc.

I am working on this premise. If this is the case everything else is irrelevant, because the agreement cannot be enforced anyway.

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

It seems to me that the gist of this case is.

That LLoyds advanced the money(16k) now when you cancelled they made a mistake because they had already advanced the money to settle your wife's Halifax overdraft and could not reclaim it.

You then made a verbal agreement with them to repay the money at 50 a week. When you stopped paying this they found they had no agreement , so they had to botch one up.

This is why it is inconsistent and mentions a car and is not dated etc.

I am working on this premise. If this is the case everything else is irrelevant, because the agreement cannot be enforced anyway.

would we go for a strike out at this stage ?

[smith]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

It seems to me that the gist of this case is.

That LLoyds advanced the money(16k) now when you cancelled they made a mistake because they had already advanced the money to settle your wife's Halifax overdraft and could not reclaim it.

You then made a verbal agreement with them to repay the money at 50 a week. When you stopped paying this they found they had no agreement , so they had to botch one up.

This is why it is inconsistent and mentions a car and is not dated etc.

I am working on this premise. If this is the case everything else is irrelevant, because the agreement cannot be enforced anyway.

yes if only i had put it that way but due to mental helth probs i find it hard to get to the point thanks

[gravytrain]

Re: smith v llyods black horse and arrow global limited belveder

OK mk 2 deffence again comments please.

The claim is poorly particularised and contains no documentation regarding the alleged debt.
The defendnt denies that he entered into a regulated agreement to repay £1000 with the claimant.
The facts are these
The defendant had an overdraft of around £1000with Halifax Bank.
The defendant arranged a loan for £16,000 from Lloyds bank in order to consolidate several debts.
Part of the loan was restricted use and earmarked for repaying the aforementioned overdraft of £1000.
The loan was issued and the Halifax overdraft was settled by direct payment from Lloyds bank
The defendant on further consideration decided he could not afford the loan, so he cancelled within the required period as prescribed under section 68 of the consumer credit act. Lloyds duly rescinded the agreement.
However Lloyds were unable to reclaim the £1000 already credited to the defendants overdraft account (Halifax).
The defendant made a verbal arrangement to repay this sum at £50 per month but no formal agreement was made and there was no mention of any interest or charges.
The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that an enforceable regulated agreement was ever made for the sum claimed.
The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof of the entitlement to claim sums under any alleged agreement and to produce any notices of assignment as required under the Law of property act