yup Pt2537 is here now too

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post3110363

Well, I hope that you are satisfied Peter!

What is it that you want?

The gold star;
the medal or;
quadruple green shield stamps?

You know you wouldd think it was my fault that this missbgotten action took place all i did was try and warn people about it, Now i am getting stick for being correct, if you dont want me to comment on this then my advice is to shut up about it, personally i am sick of the whole thing.

Peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post3110363

Well, I hope that you are satisfied Peter!

What is it that you want?

The gold star;
the medal or;
quadruple green shield stamps?

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Part of judgment posted in CCA forum, rest in VIP Case Law until confirmed.

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

That seems to be the general rules , certainly with the secret commission's, if you dont pay the broker or agent you can hardly complain that he got paid elsewhere,

however, there are also issues surrounding if the commission is a charge for credit and should it be recorded on the agreement

these are two separate issues,

Mine was the typical Egg loan as described by Militantcustomer, where the PPI premium was loaded with the credit and APR paid on both. 'cept in my case Egg consolidated it all into a Top Up. Does that make it "commission is a charge for credit and should it be recorded on the agreement"?
I think it does or am I missing the point?

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

No it doesnt

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

hi
yes as i said

A term can be a + b

If it had just said the amount you would be laughing

peter

The amount of credit doesn't then need to be stated as an whole aggregated amount to satisfy schedule 6.

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Peter

Schedule 6 explicitly states: a term stating the amount of the credit.

hi
yes as i said

A term can be a + b

If it had just said the amount you would be laughing

peter

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi
As far as breaching section 127(3) goes no I am afraid it wouldn’t,
The requirements of this section are very basic the prescribed term just says “a term representing credit” not amount of credit unfortunately.
It would possibly breach schedule 1 where the creditor is requird to give he amount but imo this would be a very minor breach.
peter

Peter

Schedule 6 explicitly states: a term stating the amount of the credit.

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Peter

The amount of credit is a prescribed term in a fixed sum loan as you know.

Could the creditor get away with stating: -

Amount of credit - A: repayment of previous loan £5k plus B: repayment of overdraft = £4K without actually stating the combined amount as a figure?

Hi
As far as breaching section 127(3) goes no I am afraid it wouldn’t,
The requirements of this section are very basic the prescribed term just says “a term representing credit” not amount of credit unfortunately.
It would possibly breach schedule 1 where the creditor is requird to give he amount but imo this would be a very minor breach.
peter

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Peter

The amount of credit is a prescribed term in a fixed sum loan as you know.

Could the creditor get away with stating: -

Amount of credit - A: repayment of previous loan £5k plus B: repayment of overdraft = £4K without actually stating the combined amount as a figure?

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

That seems to be the general rules , certainly with the secret commission's, if you dont pay the broker or agent you can hardly complain that he got paid elsewhere,

however, there are also issues surrounding if the commission is a charge for credit and should it be recorded on the agreement

these are two separate issues,

Hi Paul

Yes
I was reading about a case up north somewhere were a credit card was found to be unenforceable, not for this reason but secret commission was mentioned in the judgement.
As said the reason was not any fiduciary duty but an breach of section 140. I think this is an interesting avenue.
I am sure you will know the one it was in a lot of the press.

I have also heard the Tcc argument, not sure I agree with this, the TCC as you know is populated by charges that where compulsory element of the loan.

The ppi was optional, if it was not the whole amount would be in the tcc.
If you are saying the price of the ppi was to high because it should have been offset by the commission, firstly I would say there would the lack of fiduciary responsibility problem, then I would have to say why would any credit due have to go into the tcc surely it should just come off the credit that the ppi was bought with..
Peter

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi

not with me it hasnt.

Cant be expert on everything A C.

But i am Reading up on this very interesting.

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Hi tell you what i have learned so far a lot of the challenges are not consistant with my admitedly so far limited knowledge of the subject.

any way nice to know someone cares

peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Peter, you need to keep up!
No disrespect intended but this argument/challenge, has been ongoing for some time now...

[pt2537]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi
wow what a tangle

Have you started reclaiming all you ppis yet

I as i said am trying to get my head affound the secret commission busines, paul ios the expert on this.

Regarding dfeduciary duty my undrstanding is that in order to prove that they had one to you they sohuld be an agent of yours and be paid a fee.

Could be wrong about this as i say still trying to understand it

Peter

Peter

That seems to be the general rules , certainly with the secret commission's, if you dont pay the broker or agent you can hardly complain that he got paid elsewhere,

however, there are also issues surrounding if the commission is a charge for credit and should it be recorded on the agreement

these are two separate issues,

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Yes, thanks, Yates is similar-ish to my situation on the general thread. I was sold a consolidation cash Top Up loan for an older Egg loan and Egg Card. PPIs on the card and older loan. Capitalised by Egg and I have been paying for that capital element plus interest on my Top Up principle for over 5 years now. Utter rip off and a very 'mixed' arrangement in my view that was mis-sold on a number of grounds, one of them being nthat it is a multiple arrangement. As for Nemo, the similarities are:
(1) The PPI was very expensive for what it provided. The amount of the commissions earned by Egg were not disclosed. I was entitled to know this. The amount was such that it would create an incentive to Egg to sell the product and gave rise to a conflict of interest with me as the customer. True. Also when they capitalised the PPI and bunged it onto the Top Up Loan principle.
Egg could easily have included some reference to the commission in its Loan agreements but didn't and in the phone calls that took place at the time they didn't. No cancellation reminders or cololing off periods either and NOWT in the SAR info they sent about this either.
(2) In my case there is also insufficient evidence to conclude that a fiduciary relationship existed between me and the insurers.
(3) The loans are in different categories under the Act (I think),in that one was a cash loan, one a credit card and I had PPI sold on BOTH (single premium and monthly). Separate agreements under s.18(2).

Hi
wow what a tangle

Have you started reclaiming all you ppis yet

I as i said am trying to get my head affound the secret commission busines, paul ios the expert on this.

Regarding dfeduciary duty my undrstanding is that in order to prove that they had one to you they sohuld be an agent of yours and be paid a fee.

Could be wrong about this as i say still trying to understand it

Peter

Peter