funding corporation

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

this guardex is bugging me

did you get anything about this guardex, has guardex contacted you

what is this 15 % vat they are charging on a used vehicle/or guardex, it needs to be listed

who put the guardex on the car, etc, etc

this smells big time

have you done a subject access request on the funding co

as it is past 2008, the perscribed terms need to be listed or the agreement becomes unenforceable

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

waiting for the sar, nothing about gardx only whats on that afc doc
I cant get my head round the figures
LOAN £7,000
Total charge for credit £9,868.80
£16,868.80
£8,224.52 paid
£1,650 auction price
£9,874.52 paid in total
what figure do I subtact that from?

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

waiting for the sar, nothing about gardx only whats on that afc doc
I cant get my head round the figures What she owes is the amount of money borrowed (£7,000) plus the total charge for credit (£9,868.80) which totals £16,868.80.

This is payable by 1 instalment of £250, followed by 59 instalments of £273.73 (£16,150.07) and 1 final instalment of £468.73.

£250 + £16,150.07 + £468.73 = £16,868.80
less what she paid £ 8,224 80
less auction price £1,650.00
so does she owe £6,994.28

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

the figures bug me as well

like i have said

car loans are over 60 months max

so why 62 payments, i am trying to confirm that as we speak

i am going by whats on the agreement

i think their will be a lot of unlawful penalty fees involved

do you have an up to date statement

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

No statements until sar comes, I pulled them on the annual statements in connection with the cca they said they issued them but because of my daughters problems she cant remember and if they did there nowhere to be found

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

what we need to do is wait for the sar

how long ago did you send it, recorded delivery i hope

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

yep recorded sent on 3rd sept
this is getting worse just found this

[Bill-K]

Re: funding corporation

Hi Maggott. I'm sorry to hear of your daughter's accident, and I hope she gets to drive again soon. Yep, as Nic says, Militant is one of the best guys for this kind of stuff. I think CJ was right about the £1500 deposit being added twice in your calcs. Here's my take on the figures.
The price of the car was £8500.
The deposit was £1500 by way of a p/ex on the old car.
This left £7000 which was financed by the loan.
The Total Charge for Credit (loan set-up fees and the interest to be charged on the loan) was £9868.80,
So, the Total Amount Payable was £16868.80 - to be repaid by 1 payment of £250, then 59 instalments of £273.73.
Of this £16868.80 TAP, £8224.52 has been repaid in instalments, leaving £8644.28 balance still to pay.
Of this £8644.28 balance, £1650 was paid by way of auction, leaving £6994.28 still owing.

So - where they get the figure of £8587.28 from, I don't know. This is exactly £1593 higher than I calculate.
Firstly, the interest charged on the loan is calculated on the assumption that the date and amount of all repayments is exactly as per the schedule. Late or missed payments may result in further interest being added. Also, various fees and penalty charges may have been added to the loan after the Default Notice was issued.

But - what actually puzzles me is the figures shown in box 4 of the loan agreement. This shows a Total Charge for Credit of £9868.80 on a loan advance of £7000. The Total Amount Payable (TAP) should be the sum of these two amounts, which is £16868.80. However, it is shown in box 3 as £18368.80. This seems incorrect to me.

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

Hi Maggott. I'm sorry to hear of your daughter's accident, and I hope she gets to drive again soon. Yep, as Nic says, Militant is one of the best guys for this kind of stuff. I think CJ was right about the £1500 deposit being added twice in your calcs. Here's my take on the figures.
The price of the car was £8500.
The deposit was £1500 by way of a p/ex on the old car.
This left £7000 which was financed by the loan.
The Total Charge for Credit (loan set-up fees and the interest to be charged on the loan) was £9868.80,
So, the Total Amount Payable was £16868.80 - to be repaid by 1 payment of £250, then 59 instalments of £273.73.
Of this £16868.80 TAP, £8224.52 has been repaid in instalments, leaving £8644.28 balance still to pay.
Of this £8644.28 balance, £1650 was paid by way of auction, leaving £6994.28 still owing.

So - where they get the figure of £8587.28 from, I don't know. This is exactly £1593 higher than I calculate.
Firstly, the interest charged on the loan is calculated on the assumption that the date and amount of all repayments is exactly as per the schedule. Late or missed payments may result in further interest being added. Also, various fees and penalty charges may have been added to the loan after the Default Notice was issued.

But - what actually puzzles me is the figures shown in box 4 of the loan agreement. This shows a Total Charge for Credit of £9868.80 on a loan advance of £7000. The Total Amount Payable (TAP) should be the sum of these two amounts, which is £16868.80. However, it is shown in box 3 as £18368.80. This seems incorrect to me.

I come to the same figure as you in post 34,

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

If I use bill-k`s figure of £1593 then minus the insurance figure of £275.00 this leaves £1388.00
This could be the deposit minus late payment charges any thoughts?

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

The 62 month period is clearly explained in Box 3. First installment of £250.00 one month after date of agreement followed by 59 monthly installments of xxx, the first payable three months after the date of this agreement.

Still trying to work on the rest, but without a statement of account from inception, we're never going to be able to calculate it accuarately.

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

if the perscribed terms are mis-stated, which i believe they are as pointed out by bill-k

then the agreement is unenforceable and the repo a contravention of s.90 and s.92 of the cca 1974

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

if the perscribed terms are mis-stated, which i believe they are as pointed out by bill-k

then the agreement is unenforceable and the repo a contravention of s.90 and s.92 of the cca 1974

I agree 100%. Getting a court to agree nowadays, while by no means impossible, is certainly not an easy task though.

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

The 62 month period is clearly explained in Box 3. First installment of £250.00 one month after date of agreement followed by 59 monthly installments of xxx, the first payable three months after the date of this agreement.

Still trying to work on the rest, but without a statement of account from inception, we're never going to be able to calculate it accuarately.

followed by a final installment of £468.73

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

followed by a final installment of £468.73

Yep, which makes the 62 months.