Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

[sarafaye]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

Amethyst

The amount you query at the start of the statements refer to payments made on the account up to that date made by my Cousin from 28/02/95 up until
end of November 2007 when she left home.

I questioned both my aunt and cousin for every detail possible as my initial thoughts were as your own, that it was all in an agreed arrangement as per my initial letters to LS.

However, when I explained it was imperative to have the true facts before continuing. They were both present and it then transpired that my aunt had told the agent that my cousin had left home and needed to arrange collection from her at her new address.

The agent said the loan was from that address and it could only be collected from there as he only covered that area and it would mean lots of paperwork to arrange collection from another district. More important, he said that as my cousin had left that address, she, (my Aunt) was now responsible for the payments.

My aunt did not question this and only then did she tell my cousin that she no longer had to make payments because of the fact that the loan belonged to the address rather than the person who applied and signed for it.

Thats what I meant when when i said she had arranged with my cousin to carry on the payments, otherwise, she would not have done so. She did so in the belief that the agent had told her the truth by letting her believe the payments were now her responsibility simply because the loan came from that address.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
All that appears is my aunts name on principal borrower. there is nothing else except her address.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
As for seeing the thread, yes its in private area. I originally started it though on the CAG if that helps. Nothing private on there.

[WendyB]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

I've just read this thread through and I have to say i can't see what you are trying to achieve. Yes there was a mix up as to where the loan should be collected from/who was responsible for paying it, but if the loan has now been paid off (and part written off) then isn't it all over and done with? Fact is, the loan was taken out, its been paid, what do you hope to gain back from this? I am going to read again from the beginning and if I've mis-interpreted I'll come back and edit my post.

[sarafaye]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

wendy it's not quite that simple, wish it was.......

I'd hate to think that if i had a lodger who took out a loan that i would be held accountable simply because the loan had been taken out at my address.

This is a collector who told my Aunt that she was responsible for payment for that very reason. The only reason I can think of is that his commission was at stake. If you knew my Aunt, you'd know how easy it is to deceive her. She's not thick but very naive, a staunch churchgoer who sees no reason for people to lie or otherwise.

Only because it was her daughter did she continue these payments to save a lot of bother with paperwork etc.

In all those years of payments I had no knowledge that she even had a debt as she is a very proud person. She doesn't even possess a credit card because they are too technical!!!

I hope i haven't made matters too confusing.

What I hope to achieve is a refund of all she has paid as she has never signed for this loan, it does not belong to her and someone somewhere put her name on the payment books.

[Amethyst]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

And then will her daughter be paying off the loan ?

Sorry if that sounds a bit arsey am just wondering if your aunt needs this stress when she has spent aLL this time paying off a loan on behalf of her daughter - who could at any time have informed the collection company of the new address - your aunt may be naive but to be honest I think she has been done ov er more by her daughter than any company.

Link to CAG thread London Scottish-still paying after 14 years//**SETTLED** - Page 7 - The Consumer Forums

[sarafaye]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

Thanks all for your input, it's much appreciated.

On to the next bit, the bit where her Daughter provides the statement of truth to London Scottish even to describing the area manager and collection agent at the time she signed for the cash.

Thank you all for reading this anyway. I sincerely apologise if it appears to be a waste of time. I realise there are much more important issues for you all to deal with - hope that does not sound ungrateful in any way.

Will let you all know how I get on with this.

Thank you again

[Amethyst]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

Sorry honey, I think we're just having trouble understanding the aim of what you are trying to do.

The statement of truth provided to London scottish would surely wipe out any limitation bar on them claiming the money for the loan off of her ?

If there was a claim based on an extortionate credit bargain (which I don't think it is despite the rate being daft) then it might make more sense. As it stands both your aunt and her daughter agree she borrowed the money, your aunt agreed to repay it after her daughter left the address told her daughter of what she was doing and the daughter agreed. You have had the balance of the loan wiped off, if your aunt wanted to claim back what she has paid and put liability back on her daughter then she could only reclaim at the very most the payments she actually made, so disregarding the first two years of payments which the daughter made. Otherwise it seems as though you are trying to claim back the money your aunt willfully paid towards the loan on behalf of her daughter based on a technicality in the credit agreement.

I agree it is sad your aunt was allowed to repay this on behalf of her daughter - as far as I can see there were no issues with her paying it until your involvement, and the daughter was fully aware of the situation.

LSB have agreed the loan is unenforceable by virtue of the CCA and written off any outstanding amount.

When the payments were changed from £20 per week to £10 per week was there any new paperwork/contracts signed at that point ? Possibly explaining how the contract came to be in her name if they are adamant it was entirely in her daughters name when it was taken out.


Don't forget we have a completely fresh outlook on this as none of us as far as I am aware have any previous knowledge of the case so can only go on the things you have posted on here thus far.

[righty]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

The aim is quite clear & that is to recover the money +% that has been paid both by mistake & misrepresentation over many years.

What the aunt thought or didn't is not relevant in that for whatever reason she paid a debt for which she had no liability whatsoever because an employee of L&S deliberately misrepresented the situation in order to enrich himself. When eventually confronted by lawyers L&S agreed reluctantly to cancel the remainder of the agreement

Monies paid by mistake are still recoverable The case law to support this I think it may be Sempra Metals

[Amethyst]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

Yes i understand that Righty. I am not sure you can claim mistake or misrepresentation. The agreement may well be unenforceable but the fact remains the doorstep collector did state it could be moved to the new address but ti would mean an awful lot of paperwork and probably laid it on a bit thick, but I don't think he lied from what SF has said....it is basically only on hearsay and that would be incredibly difficult to prove. The daughters statement of truth also bugs me but i dont know what that said.

Have been chatting with Curly about this this morning at length and hopefully he will post. The PPI element of the claim, plus the interest charged thereon, could be reclaimed in my opinion, via a WP offer to back off using the cca as a lever to get that part repaid (ie otherwise will carry on for everything). Then the debt has still been repaid, cause when it comes down to it it was borrowed, and was repaid voluntarily by the aunt on behalf of her daughter.

£837 plus the interest paid on it - plus stat or contractual interest would be a fair whack.

[Curlyben]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

As an independent in all this I feel I should post.

I have spent a while reading all the posts and trying to fully understand what has been going on.

It's my understanding that a loan was acquired by the daughter, who then moved and the payments were taken on by the aunt.
Payments continued regularly until the CCA request was made. At this time L&S decided to write off the outstanding balance as they didn't have the original documents and were relying on a reconstituted agreement with the aunts details.
The aunt now wants to reclaim ALL payments made on this loan as they were paid in "mistake".
There's some toing and froing and what appears to be mixed advice.

The main problem as I see it, and how I believe a judge would see it too, is that the wealth of evidence points to the loan being correctly repaid by the aunt and the fact L&S have acted in good faith. The letter exchange between the parties goes some way to enforce this view.

Now, and this is the bit you NOT going to like, if this ever gets to court it will certainly be Fast Tracked and that means being open to substantial costs. There is little evidence to support the aunts case and even less case law. If there was solid case law for reclaiming payments due to "lacking" agreements then the flood gates would be opened and most of the home shopping and catalogue companies would be in for a torrid time.

As the comments made by the collection rep are undocumented they are simply hearsay and as such worthless.

I'm sure Righty will put me right here, but I believe that continued pursuit along these lines is fool hardy and ill judged.

There is, however, a strong case for reclaiming the PPI (+int) elemnet of this agreement as it was almost certainly miss-sold and unfit for purpose.

I'd be inclined to fire off a WP compo letter to L&S outling this proposal.
Basically repay the PPI +int or action will be taken to reclaim the mistaken payments and also restitution concerning the breaches of DPA.

So there you go.

Feel free to shoot me down, but I do believe that this is an achievable course of action with little, or no, down side.

[Budgie]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

The aim is quite clear & that is to recover the money +% that has been paid both by mistake & misrepresentation over many years.

What the aunt thought or didn't is not relevant in that for whatever reason she paid a debt for which she had no liability whatsoever because an employee of L&S deliberately misrepresented the situation in order to enrich himself. When eventually confronted by lawyers L&S agreed reluctantly to cancel the remainder of the agreement

Monies paid by mistake are still recoverable The case law to support this I think it may be Sempra Metals

There are many references to "mistake of fact or of law" in Sempra. Many authorities are referenced.


For example Para 22

22. In Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349, 372G-373B Lord Goff of Chieveley referred to the development of a coherent law of restitution, a doctrine first recognised by this House in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548, 577-578. He said there was a general right of recovery of money paid under a mistake and that it was founded upon the principle of unjust enrichment. At p 373C he said that a blanket rule of non-recovery on the ground of a mistake of law could not survive in a rubric of the law based on that principle. This led him to conclude that there was "a general right" to recover money paid under a mistake, whether of fact or law, subject to the defences available in the law of restitution: p 375H. At p 377C he said that the common law should now recognise that restitution may be granted in respect of money paid under a mistake of law. At p 379H he said that, subject to any applicable defences, the payer was "entitled" to recover the money paid under a mistake. Throughout his speech he was addressing a common law remedy, not one that was available in equity. I think that it can now be taken as settled that, under the Kleinwort Benson principle, a cause of action at common law is available for money paid under a mistake of law: Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v IRC [2007] 1 AC 558, para 62. I also think that the time has come to recognise that the court has jurisdiction at common law to award compound interest where the claimant seeks a restitutionary remedy for the time value of money paid under a mistake.

[righty]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

Yes i understand that Righty. I am not sure you can claim mistake or misrepresentation. The agreement may well be unenforceable but the fact remains the doorstep collector did state it could be moved to the new address but ti would mean an awful lot of paperwork and probably laid it on a bit thick, but I don't think he lied from what SF has said....it is basically only on hearsay and that would be incredibly difficult to prove. The daughters statement of truth also bugs me but i dont know what that said.

Have been chatting with Curly about this this morning at length and hopefully he will post. The PPI element of the claim, plus the interest charged thereon, could be reclaimed in my opinion, via a WP offer to back off using the cca as a lever to get that part repaid (ie otherwise will carry on for everything). Then the debt has still been repaid, cause when it comes down to it it was borrowed, and was repaid voluntarily by the aunt on behalf of her daughter.

£837 plus the interest paid on it - plus stat or contractual interest would be a fair whack.

Even if misrepresentation cannot be proven & I think that's not as impossible as you might think as it's my understanding that even if true, change of paperwork, etc can be proven to be utter nonsense as a reason for NOT collecting from another address then mistake almost certainly can

Even if the foregoing is not tenable then I think mistake is. Lets face it who continues to pay anothers debt for a decade except an unsophisticated elderly person who doesn't want to make a fuss.

Also I think there may be evidence within the L&S paperwork to show that they knew they were taking money from someone other than the true debtor.

IMHO if the latter is correct they cannot after such a long period just simply wash their hands as one would have thought they would at some point questioned as to why this was happening

At best their attitude can be described as, if not dishonest, certainly cavalier in the way they conducted this account.

I repeat that although done without prejudice they did cancel the outstanding balance after lawyers became involved & had they thought their position a strong one a company like L&S, which has appeared on consumer boards on regular basis, would not have done so at least without a long fight
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Forgot to mention the only reason this matter was dropped by solicitors is because of the refusal of legal aid. That said I know the office where the application was made & it's particularly notorious for rejecting claims which other offices accept
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
curly a person actually privy to a conversation is not repeating hearsay but are giving direct evidence which is permissible in court. Being believed is another matter entirely

[Budgie]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

I have read through all of the material I can find on this claim and support Curlyben's view entirely.

I believe it would be foolhardy to embark upon a claim for recovery of the loan repayments on the basis stated. I do not think that the loan repayments, whilst extortionate, are unlawful or unfair so it is difficult to see how a Judge could order them to be repaid. A mistake of law or fact would have to be proven and I fail to see how this could be accomplished.

I do however agree that a claim based on recovery of the insurance aspect ( + associated interest ) on the grounds of misselling would definitely be worth pursuing and that there is a good chance that such a claim would likely be settled by the Defendant prior to a court hearing. This, given the premium involved and the associated interest rate ( an APR of 91% ) which was also applied to the insurance premium would not be an insignificant sum.

Regards Budgie

[Curlyben]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

Righty, thanks for putting me right on that one.
As I said I was posting from my perceptions of the issues.

[righty]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

Budgie I agree it must be proven but only on the basis of probability & if everything is taken into account then IMHO res ipsa loquitur (the evidence speaks for itself) applies

Anyway I will be discussing this matter with other lawyers later in the week & we'll see what their take is on it

[Budgie]

Re: Sarafaye and London Scottish disputed debt

By all means Righty.

I am certainly not a Lawyer nor do I even claim to have any legal expertise whatosever. I am just expressing an opinion.

IMO the elderly Lady in question would actually have more chance in succeding in a claim against her Daughter for repayment of the money that she had paid out on her behalf. But she obviousley won't be considering a claim of that sort.

She is the person who will eventually have to decide whether to proceed with claim against London Scottish on what are extremely shakey grounds, with a huge risk of Costs against should she fail and the added stress and worry of lengthy court appearances etc etc.

Aprrox £1600 has already been written off of the debt and a succesful claim for missold PPI and associated interest would gain her a further significant return.

Personally, if it were my claim, I would listen very carefully to any advice that is given to me, from all sources and make a decision accordingly.