Irresponsible lending

[tarotmac]

HI all I a newbi to this and I'm looking for help in claiming against Barclays Partner Finance for Irresponsible Lending. I was sold a training course, which was funded by Barclays, all arranged by Property Professionals Ltd. who have gone into admiistration. No mention of interest rates was made until I recieved the paper work from Barclays. at which point I tried to cancel the agreement with Barclays who refused saying I had to get PP to cancel it. PP also refused to cancel it. No proper checks were made to assertain weather or not I could afford to pay back the loan. I am looking for any advice about how to go about claiming and any letter templates to send to Barclays and also what I need to ask for.

[shamen]

Re: Irresponsible lending

I recieved the paper work from Barclays. at which point I tried to cancel the agreement with Barclays who refused saying I had to get PP to cancel it.

How long was it between agreeing to the package and you notifying barclays you wished to cancel? If I am correct, a cooling off period should apply as you did not make the application on the creditors premises.

You will only benefit from a cooling off period if the credit agreement was made in one of the following ways:

1. For agreements signed away from the creditor’s normal business premises – i.e. at your home, place of work or at an exhibition stand
2. For agreements made at a distance (online, by phone or by post)

[Guest]

Re: Irresponsible lending

HI all I a newbi to this and I'm looking for help in claiming against Barclays Partner Finance for Irresponsible Lending. I was sold a training course, which was funded by Barclays, all arranged by Property Professionals Ltd. who have gone into admiistration. No mention of interest rates was made until I recieved the paper work from Barclays. at which point I tried to cancel the agreement with Barclays who refused saying I had to get PP to cancel it. PP also refused to cancel it. No proper checks were made to assertain weather or not I could afford to pay back the loan. I am looking for any advice about how to go about claiming and any letter templates to send to Barclays and also what I need to ask for.

Wouldnt section 75 be appropriate here?

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Irresponsible lending

Wouldnt section 75 be appropriate here?

Peter

Ok section 75 should appy if this loan here not a CDS restrited use loan, which i take it it is?

Also according to the CCD a cancellation period applies for 14 days after you recieved the agreement.
Providing it was not executed on the creditors premisses

Petr

[CleverClogs]

Re: Irresponsible lending

Wouldnt section 75 be appropriate here?

Peter

Ok section 75 sould appy if this loan here not a CDS restrited use loan, which i take it it is?

Petr

Are you now arguing with yourself?

[Guest]

Re: Irresponsible lending

Are you now arguing with yourself?

Hoping to stimulate some informed discusion to explore options for the OP.

Perhaps you would like to contribute.

Peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: Irresponsible lending

I do not understand how any limitation or restriction on the possible use of the credit obtained might allow the creditor to avoid their liability for contract performance under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - link.

If a motor car is purchased on credit and the motor car proves to be faulty, then the borrower can use section 75 to obtain redress; no restrictions on the use of credit would remove the liability of the creditor.

Likewise, if a course of woo-woo therapy (such as Hopi ear candling - link1 and link2) were bought on credit and it failed to achieve the therapeutic benefits claimed of it (for ear candling, it is difficult to understand how it might ever succeed) then the borrower would have the right to redress from the creditor.

[Guest]

Re: Irresponsible lending

I do not understand how any limitation or restriction on the possible use of the credit obtained might allow the creditor to avoid their liability for contract performance under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - link.

No section 75 says quite the contrary, it says the creditor is jointly liable for the loss incurred by the debtor , the idea was that the OP uses section 75 to sue Barclays

If a motor car is purchased on credit and the motor car proves to be faulty, then the borrower can use section 75 to obtain redress; no restrictions on the use of credit would remove the liability of the creditor.

Correct HOwever i do not think section 75 applies if the loan is for restricted use credit under section 11 of the act.(could be wrong)

Likewise, if a course of woo-woo therapy (such as Hopi ear candling - link1 and link2) were bought on credit and it failed to achieve the therapeutic benefits claimed of it (for ear candling, it is difficult to understand how it might ever succeed) then the borrower would have the right to redress from the creditor.

Now you have lost me

Peter

[tarotmac]

Re: Irresponsible lending

I tried sec 75 didn't work. how ever I need info on irresponsible lending. and how to go about the claim.
Thanks all anyway

[Guest]

Re: Irresponsible lending

I tried sec 75 didn't work. how ever I need info on irresponsible lending. and how to go about the claim.
Thanks all anyway

I tried sec 75 didn't work. how ever I need info on irresponsible lending. and how to go about the claim.
Thanks all anyway

HI
Yes must be restriced use loan. Let me have a look and i will get back

peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: Irresponsible lending

Let me assist. First, there are some definitions provided by section 11 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - link

(1) A restricted-use credit agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement—

(a) to finance a transaction between the debtor and the creditor, whether forming part of that agreement or not, or
(b) to finance a transaction between the debtor and a person (the “supplier ”) other than the creditor, or
(c )to refinance any existing indebtedness of the debtor’s, whether to the creditor or another person,

and “restricted-use credit ” shall be construed accordingly.

and section 12 - link

12 Debtor-creditor supplier agreements.

A debtor-creditor-supplier agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement being—

(a)a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(a), or
(b)a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(b) and is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or
(c)an unrestricted-use credit agreement which is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements between himself and a person (the “supplier ”) other than the debtor in the knowledge that the credit is to be used to finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier.

Sections 11(1)(b) and 12(b) would seem to apply to this loan, obtained for the sole purpose of financing a training course; that the agent of the supplier provided the forms specifically for one creditor does certainly suggest the existence of a pre-existing arrangement.

Then there is section 75 - link

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

(2)Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—

(a)under a non-commercial agreement, or

(b)so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding £100 or more than £30,000.

(4)This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

(5)In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.

Section 75(1) seems perfectly plain and unambiguous - both the creditor and the supplier are jointly and severally liable to the debtor for any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract.

I would therefore like to know why that section "did not work".

Did the creditor claim that it only applied to the supply of goods? As you can see from the above, it does not.

Did the creditor claim that the cash value of the training course was less than £100 or greater than £30,000?

Did the creditor state that it was a non-commercial agreement?

[Guest]

Re: Irresponsible lending

Let me assist. First, there are some definitions provided by section 11 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - link


and section 12 - link


Sections 11(1)(b) and 12(b) would seem to apply to this loan, obtained for the sole purpose of financing a training course; that the agent of the supplier provided the forms specifically for one creditor does certainly suggest the existence of a pre-existing arrangement.

Then there is section 75 - link



Section 75(1) seems perfectly plain and unambiguous - both the creditor and the supplier are jointly and severally liable to the debtor for any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract.

I would therefore like to know why that section "did not work".

Did the creditor claim that it only applied to the supply of goods? As you can see from the above, it does not.

Did the creditor claim that the cash value of the training course was less than £100 or greater than £30,000?

Did the creditor state that it was a non-commercial agreement?

Oh dear the knives are out for PB again.
I did say that i was not sure about this but the OPs comments did seem to support my reading of the sections.
in question
With resopectr we do not know under what circumstances the loan was granted, sonded to me like the OP had gone into the section 75 thing and found that it was not applicable.

If you read section 75 you will see it says section 12b and 12c of the act in other words not 12a.

Still not sure mind you, but seems reasonable


Peter

[Guest]

Re: Irresponsible lending

OH AND BY THE WAY IT WAS ME THAT RAISED THE WHOLE QUESTION OF USING SECTION 75 ON THIS THREAD

just a point

[Celestine]

Re: Irresponsible lending

Whoa! What happened??

Everyone's just trying to help then it kicks off at post 12.

Differences of approach and opinion are one thing, slamming someone for interpreting something different isn't on.

Come on now, make up nicely, no need for this x

[Guest]

Re: Irresponsible lending

Yes and i think you may well be right CC, i have been looking around though for examples of restricted use credit that have taken advantage of this, cant find any?

Peter