Q re: agreement under Consumer Credit Act 1974

[mrka]

Hi there,

I'm wondering if anyone can give some advice on the below agreement, it is a Fixed-sum Loan Agreement and Pawn Receipt regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In May this year we were truly stuck for money in a home emergency and could not get a bank loan, so I resorted to sticking some jewellery into 'The Money Shop'. We got the £ and I'm all set to pay it off (including the interest (I know!)) next month.

Tonight I got the agreement out just to check the due date and noticed the rate of interest, total amount payable, daily interest and APR fields were all blank. My agreement number (blanked out) is hand written, the borrower name is hand written and the address has a number which I assume is my customer number on their system. These can be seen in the first image. In the second image the section which says the pawnbroker has taken the following property as security is also blank. The third image shows what I have agreed to, and in section it states "This agreement comes into force when it is signed and dated by us" - of which their employee has signed and dated the bottom of the document.

My question is, am I perfectly within my rights to return to the shop with the original £300 and say your agreement states no interest, so I will repay the £300 only. The terms and conditions page which is not signed and stapled to the back of the agreement states no APR rate at all. I'd be very interested to see what people more skilled than me would make of this.

[labman]

Re: Q re: agreement under Consumer Credit Act 1974

Very interesting. Is this ALL the paperwork you got with the loan? If so, I'd pm Celestine and pt2537 and ask their opinions on this.

The T&C's actually state you must repay the 'Total Amount Payable' which on the agreement is blank, which makes life even more interesting.

They're the experts, so I'd get them to look. It might also be worth highlighting to Flaming Parrot to ask her to have a look.

[ncf355]

Re: Q re: agreement under Consumer Credit Act 1974

Wow, free money!

Going to be VERY interested to see how this one pans out!

[Guest]

Re: Q re: agreement under Consumer Credit Act 1974

It really depends how far you with to go with this.
The agreement is post 2007 so automatic unenforceability is not an option, however the agreement is improperly executed and lacks repayment details, which is a prescribed term(under section 61) and as you say the APR, which is not a prescribed term but is required under the regulation.

So a court has the option of deciding that this is unenforceable under section 65 and also may decline to issue an enforcement order.

This is the Wilson scenario, in that if this was the case the security would also be returnable under section 113/106, as security is invalid if the agreement is improperly executed under section 65.

It must be stressed though that in the above case it entirely depends on the view of the court as to the amount of prejudice caused by the error, the judge may decide that the debtor was not unduly damaged and issue an enforcement order anyway.

[ncf355]

Re: Q re: agreement under Consumer Credit Act 1974

Certainly seems like a balanced opinion Andy

Playing it safe, I'd be inclined to offer the £300, get the silver back THEN question the legality?

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Q re: agreement under Consumer Credit Act 1974

Certainly seems like a balanced opinion Andy

Playing it safe, I'd be inclined to offer the £300, get the silver back THEN question the legality?

I agree with the above. Although the amount repayable has been left blank on the agreement and it could be argued there's nothing to pay, this is not a payday loan offered without security. The pawnbrokers have the jewellery as security, and are not likely to return it without payment. As there's no mention of any interest, they can't ask for something that wasn't there in the first place. :thumb:

[Guest]

Re: Q re: agreement under Consumer Credit Act 1974

I agree with the above. Although the amount repayable has been left blank on the agreement and it could be argued there's nothing to pay, this is not a payday loan offered without security. The pawnbrokers have the jewellery as security, and are not likely to return it without payment. As there's no mention of any interest, they can't ask for something that wasn't there in the first place. :thumb:

Fine in theory, but in practice, i think the shop would be unlikely to relinquish the goods until the sum was paid in full.
Which leaves two options if you want your goods back.
You either pay and the take an action saying the agreement was not properly executed, in this case you would not get your money back.
Or you decline to pay anything and make a small claim against the shop for the return of the goods saying that the agreement was improperly executed.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Q re: agreement under Consumer Credit Act 1974

Fine in theory, but in practice, i think the shop would be unlikely to relinquish the goods until the sum was paid in full.
Which leaves two options if you want your goods back.
You either pay and the take an action saying the agreement was not properly executed, in this case you would not get your money back.
Or you decline to pay anything and make a small claim against the shop for the return of the goods saying that the agreement was improperly executed.

Those were precisely my thoughts, but what sum are we talking about? :noidea: All I can see on the piece of paper scanned and posted above is £300. When you go back to the shop, you could hardly be expected to pay, say, £500, could you? Not when you never agreed to it in the first place. How much would you be expected to pay? How would you know if it's not anywhere on the agreement?