yup Pt2537 is here now too

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

HHJ Platts gave a judgment in Yates & Nemo where he held such an agreement would be multiple and would fall within the act

He distinguishes heath very well too and refers to the relevant parts of the heath judgment

Any chance you could send the judgment over?

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Also to me, please.

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Yates v Nemo is posted up somewhere about Just do a search on it (actually if you search in google it comes up top) Theres a decent summary there. Because we don't have a general released copy the actual full judgment is in VIP though. I'll try sort out getting a public copy up.

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

A default notice is required under s87, before an agreement can be enforced or, terminated.

One also has to look at matters relating to the Unfair Relationships:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/...unfair/#named2

At this stage, Egg may have won a battle (?) but they have NOT won the war!

Hi Ac

Yes a default notice is need before court action can commence but as stated in the OFT pamphlet above either party can terminate an agreement at any time(credit card)


Petr

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Think we had a lonnnnnnnnnnngggg discussion about terminating agreements with a guy from CCK, will see if I can find it, might have some of this argument resolved already. (then again it may be entirely irrelevant)

Right if you can be bothered to trawl through the crap - this thread had some interesting discussion Momentum Network / CCK - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[The Debt Star]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Just to clarify on this, Ihaterbs.

1. Egg Cards
The case we are all talking about was regarding an Egg CARD and it mainly hinged on the fact that the old Egg Card agreements did not contain the prescribed term "credit limit" but instead used various terms such as "approved limit" and "individual limit". I have included a copy of an example agreement below.

PT's main argument was that a layperson would not understand that these alternative limit terms were in fact the "credit limit".

Thus there was a failure to state a prescribed term, and this would render such pre-2007 agreements unenforceable due to s127(3) of CCA 1974.

PT also had other more minor issues with the agreements such as the APR being incorrectly stated due to the impact of cash advances.

Until we see the full judgment we won't know whether those other points are still valid for defending any claim, but it sounds like the "credit limit" defence no longer has any mileage in it.

2. Egg Loans
The multiple agreements point under section 18 of CCA 1974 relates to Egg LOANS such as the second image below.

This is NOTHING TO DO WITH the Slater court case judgment that we are all waiting for.

But PT did have a case ongoing with one of these agreements. It was settled out of court.

The argument here was the PPI was added to the loan and that PPI was "restricted credit" whereas the principal loan was "unrestricted credit". Those two terms are defined by section 11(?), and then section 18 talks about so-called "multiple agreements" which mix the two types of credit, saying they should be treated as two separate agreements with two sets of prescribed terms.

As you will see, the Egg Loan agreement below (2nd image) just lumps it all in together, and it's very unclear what the monthly payment is for and whether interest is being charged on the PPI (which it actually was, at the same APR as the principal loan).

Hence again a failure to state the prescribed terms properly, and again potentially unenforceable by virtue of s127(3).

Below are extracts from the two different types of agreements.


TYPICAL EGG CARD AGREEMENT

TYPICAL EGG CARD AGREEMENT

TYPICAL EGG LOAN AGREEMENT WITH PPI

TYPICAL EGG LOAN AGREEMENT WITH PPI

yes yes yes thats what I'm saying in my separate thread on the genaerl debt forum. the above agreements are exactly like mine, only Egg consolidated PPI on both my card and loan in an egg top up loan with no PPI so i'm basically paying for something i don't have the use and benefit of. its about as multiple as it gets.

[Ihaterbs]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Yates v Nemo is posted up somewhere about Just do a search on it (actually if you search in google it comes up top) Theres a decent summary there. Because we don't have a general released copy the actual full judgment is in VIP though. I'll try sort out getting a public copy up.

Got it now. Thanks.

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Hi Just read the yates judgement, very interesting.

HOw much wa the total loan for this do we know, it was a multiplle agreement i agree but was the improper execution due to there being no CCA at al because it was over the limit?
As in heath.
Any additional information appretiated

Also need to get my head around this secret commision thing, determinating who has a fiduciary duty to whom and why is doin me head in.

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Think we had a lonnnnnnnnnnngggg discussion about terminating agreements with a guy from CCK, will see if I can find it, might have some of this argument resolved already. (then again it may be entirely irrelevant)

Right if you can be bothered to trawl through the crap - this thread had some interesting discussion Momentum Network / CCK - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Hi
Love trawling through all this sort of crap

How sad i am
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Hi
This may help to clarify lots of things it is from the european directive and is an ammendment to the cca that is due to be introduced in feb next year it inserts secctions after 98 in the cca clariying ind intruducing proceedure on terminating agreements. It also clarifies shat this sort of none default termination really means.
"Termination etc of open-end consumer credit agreements

98A.–(1) The debtor under a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, may by notice terminate the agreement, free of charge, at any time, subject to any period of notice not exceeding one month provided for by the agreement.
(2) Notice under subsection (1) need not be in writing unless the creditor so requires.
(3) Where a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, provides for termination of the agreement by the creditor–
(a) the termination must be by notice served on the debtor, and
(b) the termination may not take effect until after the end of the period of two months, or such longer period as the agreement may provide, beginning with the day after the day on which notice is served.
(4) Where a regulated open-end consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, provides for termination or suspension by the creditor of the debtor´s right to draw on credit–
(a) to terminate or suspend the right to draw on credit the creditor must serve a notice on the debtor before the termination or suspension or, if that is not practicable, immediately afterwards,
(b) the notice must give reasons for the termination or suspension, and
(c) the reasons must be objectively justified.
(5) Subsection (4)(a) and (b) does not apply where giving the notice–
(a) is prohibited by an EU obligation, or
(b) would, or would be likely to, prejudice–
(i) the prevention or detection of crime,
(ii) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or
(iii) the administration of justice.
(6) An objectively justified reason under subsection (4)(c) may, for example, relate to–
(a) the unauthorised or fraudulent use of credit, or
(b) a significantly increased risk of the debtor being unable to fulfil his obligation to repay the credit.
(7) Subsections (1) and (3) do not affect any right to terminate an agreement for breach

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Hi
I think a lot of this confusion is because of the difference between a default termination and a termination of the debtors right to draw on credit which is the none default scenario.

Peter

[The Debt Star]

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).

[Guest]

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

[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,

[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...

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[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?