Further Advance on a Mtg and the CCA question

[andrew1]

Can someone clarify these terms for me:

" Further or Alternatively any further advances to the defendants since Nov 89 have been secured by the said legal charge dated 3rd Nov 89 and insofar as they are found to be separate agreements rather than variations of the original Agreements and to have been below £25,000 have been exempt debtor-creditor agreements under the Act (CCA74) where they have refinanced the Defendants existing indebtedness to the Claimant"

If I took a £50,000 Further Advance on my Mtg and say £23k was to pay off arrears to the Mtg Company and they asked me to clear a 2nd charge loan from another finance company of £18,000 and paid me the balance cash of £ £9k does the clause above mean that the £23k would be exempt as it's paying off arrears to the same bank, but the other parts not exempt and regulated under the CCA?

[Paule]

Re: Further Advance on a Mtg and the CCA question

Are these 2 in relation to each other or are the fugures you quoted just an example.

Can you expand a bit on this please, as the statement seems to follow on from another part ie 'Further or Alternatively......'

[andrew1]

Re: Further Advance on a Mtg and the CCA question

Yes it's part of a full Reply and Defence put up by the Mtg Company's solicitors against a counter claim I have put in on a Further Advance.

I've said it is a regulated multiple agreement rather than just an extension to the mtg..It's along story that's why I cut this bit, I am splitting hairs, but that's what we do best, and the devils in the detail.

As you will note their Reply and defence was " as they ( 'they' being the previous Further Advances since Nov'89) are found to be separate agreements rather than variations of the original Agreements and to have been below £25,000 have been exempt debtor-creditor agreements under the Act (CCA74) where they have refinanced the Defendants existing indebtedness to the Claimant" Now, part of the amount loaned in the Further Advance was to repay the Defendants indebtedness to the Claimant - ie the arrears, but the other parts were not and likewise with earlier loans. So does that mean I can argue that those parts should have been Regulated?