funding corporation

[Bill-K]

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?

Sorry, I missed that post, Maggott, and just did my calcs entirely separately - so I think we arrived at the same answer by different routes - which is a good 'double-check.'
No, I don't think so, as the £1500 deposit is not included in the TAP - it is not part of the £7000 loan advance itself. But I agree that this could be penalty charges.

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 was hoping you and Labman might see some mileage in that. As Labman suggests, unenforceability itself can be a bit of a booby prize, but unlawful repo might give this some legs.

[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.

and followed by final instalment of £468.73

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

I was hoping you and Labman might see some mileage in that. As Labman suggests, unenforceability itself can be a bit of a booby prize, but unlawful repo might give this some legs.

It's not impossible, it's just a lot harder than it was. Unlawful repo would certainly be easier, and a combination of both, along with anything else still to be thrown up could be powerful.

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

sorry double posting heads battered

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

We might get the funding co to quirm a bit

if the repo is unlawful the poster will get back all his repayments on the agreement so far, including the deposit

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

Plus interest at 8%? Gotta be worth a go!

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

Well lots of small cuts may bleed them to death, so I will try to explain in order the sequence of events.

We recieved a default noticed dated 13th feb, we replied to this by recorded delivery that we could no longer keep up our daughters payments and would they except a token payment of £30.00 a month to be reveiwed in six months and to freeze all interest and charges.This letter went unanswered (breech of oft guidelines?)

We then received a letter dated march1st this was the terminanation and seizure letter, we responded to this by sending recorded deliverey account in dispute letter for the reasons listed below which I belive may be breeches of the cca act.

Failure to supply yearly statements (unsure about this one)
Failure to supply notice of sums in arrears (this we did receive dated march 2nd to late?)
Total balance on the termination letter and the total amount payable on the default notice was wrong

for these reasons the account was in dispute,I also informed them that while the acount was in dispute their actions are limited and do not allow for repossession of goods(read that somewhere now cant seem to find it)

Received a letter dated march 14th denying any breeches
and giving us 8 weeks to respond, car repossessed on march 30th

The repossession took place at my daughters home by a company called chambers,giving the state of her mental health which the funding co new about should they have be allowed this as she could be classe as a vunerable person.

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

It looks like they have told a company called toccatto to collect the debt now they contacted the daughter directly.even though they know she is incapable of dealing with issues like this yet.
been reading round threads to day, regarding DN it seems normal practice to default after 2 or 3 missed payments, we hadnt missed a payment we where late with the feb payment which was due the 1st defaulted on the 13th must be some kind of record

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

forget tocatto

that is another name for a well know DCA called lowells

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...S01ijMDS6T2tng

they as a rule specialise in statute barred or unenforceable debts, thats tocatto, not lowells

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

marvelous thats all she needs I`v e read quite a bit about these people and none of its good

[labman]

Re: funding corporation

Don't worry. DCA's are generally not to be feared!

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

Don't worry. DCA's are generally not to be feared!

Personelly not bothered come to my door and I`ll fill em in,
It`s the damage that this may cause to my daughters recovery thats the worry

[maggott]

Re: funding corporation

[Bill-K]

Re: funding corporation

As Mil & Labman have implied, they now appear to have realised that this is not gonna happen for them, and have palmed it off on to a DCA. I recently got a threatogram from Tocatta in connection with an old disputed BT bill (for £1K+ !!!). I emailed them a 'prove it' letter, and have heard nothing more from them. I didn't realise they were a Lowell's offshoot, though, so cheers for that, Mil.

FWIW, the DN that Maggott has just posted does indeed show a TAP of £18,643.80. This actually corresponds with NEITHER of the two TAP's shown in the agreement !!! I suspect it's an unlawful DN in that case, and perhaps reinforces the unlawful repo aspect.

Yep - they've lost it, I reckon - and they know it, too.

[miliitant]

Re: funding corporation

I had letters from tocatto (lowells) for about six weeks
i just ignored them and they just slid away never to be heard of again

just ignore if i were in your position