Tweet
Hello,
I hope that I've posted this in the right place!
I was wondering if anyone could give me their opinion with regards to a HP agreement that I've got and what's happened this afternoon with my current lender. I'm really angry with them and their agents and can't get to sleep because of it and if things don't go to plan, I'm more than happy to fight my corner and have a day in court with the lender because I know my way around the Consumer Credit Act and it's amendments a little bit.
My current situation is that I run a small CMC (before everyone starts hissing and booing - I like to think that I'm one of the good ones, and I don't turn my clients over). Due to the Judicial Review and lenders putting claims on hold, my income has been seriously affected, and as such, I've struggled to juggle all of my repayments on debts and the mortgage. I thought I had it under control until this afternoon, when things took a slight turn for the worse.
I've kept all my creditors up to date with what's happened etc, so they're all in the loop and they're also aware that with the JR done and dusted, my income should increase over the coming weeks and months. Everyone has played ball, except one, and it concerns an unregulated HP agreement on a caravan.
The facts are this: I bought a caravan in joint names with my wife and the purchase price was £31,352. I took out the loan in May, 2007, and crucially, at that point, whilst I had a finance background (predominately mortgages), I had very little understanding of the Consumer Credit Act or the protection it offered debtors. I arranged a loan with the broker at the caravan park, and they arranged a loan with The Finance Corporation and they required a deposit of 20%. The payments seemed reasonable, so we were accepted for the loan. The loan agreement was duly signed for £25,081.33 (which was dead on 80% of the purchase price), making it an unregulated loan. There were no other fess added to make the credit below £25k, so there's no angle to argue that it should have been regulated.
We've paid each month since taking out the agreement, and were 4 years into a 7 year term. Due to the JR proceedings, we missed April's payment, May's payment and we're yet to pay this months, however, I've got funds coming in tomorrow, so out of courtesy, I called the lender this afternoon to inform them that I'll be making a payment by the end of the month, and hopefully, be able to make payments on a monthly basis thereafter and sort out the arrears. When I spoke to them, they asked, 'have you received a letter from us this morning?' to which I replied no I hadn't. I was then told that they had terminated the agreement and were going to repossess the caravan - I was gobsmacked. The guy was pretty snotty to be frank, and he was quick to point out that the agreement was unregulated, and basically - tough luck. He then went on to say that if we paid off the whole arrears by the end of the month, he 'would consider' re-instating the agreement. When I asked for clarification of this, he said ' it's non-negotiable and if we paid the arrears, he'd consider re-instating it'. Prior to this call, there had been no warning that they were going to terminate. I know that they wouldn't have to issue a default notice under S87 of the CCA, but I feel that they should have given us at least some warning.
Dependent on what happens over the next week, I may, or may not, be in a position to pay off the arrears, but I'm fuming with them over the way that we've been treated here, and I fancy having a crack at them if they don't agree to re-instate the agreement. I'm not trying to wriggle out of the debt or not pay, but I think the way this has been done is very unfair, and if they push it further, then the gloves are off and I'm happy to take my chance in a courtroom where I'll ask the Court for any relief it sees fit.
I've had a mull over it this evening, and I feel that the lender, as well as the broker has a case to answer here.
Firstly, bearing in mind that I'm going to make a full contractual payment by the end of the month, I'm current 2 and threequarter months down, and I'll be 2 down by the end of the month. If they do repossess the caravan, they're going to sell it for a lot less than the current open market value and then they're going to knock on my door for the difference. If they do this I think that the penalty is far too disproportionate to the level of the breach, they've not taken my financial situation into account, and I think it's an unfair relationship under S140 of the CCA to do this with no warning and think they can get away with it because it's an unregulated agreement. I think they'd struggle to convince a judge anywhere what they're doing is fair.
Secondly, I think the broker has got a lot to answer for as well. When the loan was arranged, it was for a sum of £25,081.33. At the time, I was earning decent money, and to put another £100 deposit wouldn't have been a problem. If were going to be pedantic, then putting another £81.33 as a deposit wouldn't have been a problem either. At the time we took out the agreement, neither the broker, nor the lender, bought up how close the figure was to being a regulated loan and what rights I was signing away by having it unregulated. With whats happened since, the lender wouldn't have got away with what they've done today if it was regulated, therefore, I think that the broker, as well as the lender, has been negligent in arranging a loan of this size and I feel that I've been sold out for the princely sum of £81.33 and lost all my consumer rights because of it. I also don't believe that they've acted in the spirit of the CCA and possibly breached OFT guidelines on irresponsible lending.
I know going to court in the current climate with any type of arguement against a lender is perilous, so I was wondering what the thoughts of everyone here was if I decided to take this route if they're not going to play nicely, and secondly, I haven't yet been able to find any case law on these arguments, but I was wondering if anyone knew of a case where a Judge has seen something like this and ruled against the lender?
Thanks in advance for any replies.
The Big Dog.
I hope that I've posted this in the right place!
I was wondering if anyone could give me their opinion with regards to a HP agreement that I've got and what's happened this afternoon with my current lender. I'm really angry with them and their agents and can't get to sleep because of it and if things don't go to plan, I'm more than happy to fight my corner and have a day in court with the lender because I know my way around the Consumer Credit Act and it's amendments a little bit.
My current situation is that I run a small CMC (before everyone starts hissing and booing - I like to think that I'm one of the good ones, and I don't turn my clients over). Due to the Judicial Review and lenders putting claims on hold, my income has been seriously affected, and as such, I've struggled to juggle all of my repayments on debts and the mortgage. I thought I had it under control until this afternoon, when things took a slight turn for the worse.
I've kept all my creditors up to date with what's happened etc, so they're all in the loop and they're also aware that with the JR done and dusted, my income should increase over the coming weeks and months. Everyone has played ball, except one, and it concerns an unregulated HP agreement on a caravan.
The facts are this: I bought a caravan in joint names with my wife and the purchase price was £31,352. I took out the loan in May, 2007, and crucially, at that point, whilst I had a finance background (predominately mortgages), I had very little understanding of the Consumer Credit Act or the protection it offered debtors. I arranged a loan with the broker at the caravan park, and they arranged a loan with The Finance Corporation and they required a deposit of 20%. The payments seemed reasonable, so we were accepted for the loan. The loan agreement was duly signed for £25,081.33 (which was dead on 80% of the purchase price), making it an unregulated loan. There were no other fess added to make the credit below £25k, so there's no angle to argue that it should have been regulated.
We've paid each month since taking out the agreement, and were 4 years into a 7 year term. Due to the JR proceedings, we missed April's payment, May's payment and we're yet to pay this months, however, I've got funds coming in tomorrow, so out of courtesy, I called the lender this afternoon to inform them that I'll be making a payment by the end of the month, and hopefully, be able to make payments on a monthly basis thereafter and sort out the arrears. When I spoke to them, they asked, 'have you received a letter from us this morning?' to which I replied no I hadn't. I was then told that they had terminated the agreement and were going to repossess the caravan - I was gobsmacked. The guy was pretty snotty to be frank, and he was quick to point out that the agreement was unregulated, and basically - tough luck. He then went on to say that if we paid off the whole arrears by the end of the month, he 'would consider' re-instating the agreement. When I asked for clarification of this, he said ' it's non-negotiable and if we paid the arrears, he'd consider re-instating it'. Prior to this call, there had been no warning that they were going to terminate. I know that they wouldn't have to issue a default notice under S87 of the CCA, but I feel that they should have given us at least some warning.
Dependent on what happens over the next week, I may, or may not, be in a position to pay off the arrears, but I'm fuming with them over the way that we've been treated here, and I fancy having a crack at them if they don't agree to re-instate the agreement. I'm not trying to wriggle out of the debt or not pay, but I think the way this has been done is very unfair, and if they push it further, then the gloves are off and I'm happy to take my chance in a courtroom where I'll ask the Court for any relief it sees fit.
I've had a mull over it this evening, and I feel that the lender, as well as the broker has a case to answer here.
Firstly, bearing in mind that I'm going to make a full contractual payment by the end of the month, I'm current 2 and threequarter months down, and I'll be 2 down by the end of the month. If they do repossess the caravan, they're going to sell it for a lot less than the current open market value and then they're going to knock on my door for the difference. If they do this I think that the penalty is far too disproportionate to the level of the breach, they've not taken my financial situation into account, and I think it's an unfair relationship under S140 of the CCA to do this with no warning and think they can get away with it because it's an unregulated agreement. I think they'd struggle to convince a judge anywhere what they're doing is fair.
Secondly, I think the broker has got a lot to answer for as well. When the loan was arranged, it was for a sum of £25,081.33. At the time, I was earning decent money, and to put another £100 deposit wouldn't have been a problem. If were going to be pedantic, then putting another £81.33 as a deposit wouldn't have been a problem either. At the time we took out the agreement, neither the broker, nor the lender, bought up how close the figure was to being a regulated loan and what rights I was signing away by having it unregulated. With whats happened since, the lender wouldn't have got away with what they've done today if it was regulated, therefore, I think that the broker, as well as the lender, has been negligent in arranging a loan of this size and I feel that I've been sold out for the princely sum of £81.33 and lost all my consumer rights because of it. I also don't believe that they've acted in the spirit of the CCA and possibly breached OFT guidelines on irresponsible lending.
I know going to court in the current climate with any type of arguement against a lender is perilous, so I was wondering what the thoughts of everyone here was if I decided to take this route if they're not going to play nicely, and secondly, I haven't yet been able to find any case law on these arguments, but I was wondering if anyone knew of a case where a Judge has seen something like this and ruled against the lender?
Thanks in advance for any replies.
The Big Dog.
Comment