Lloyds Loan back in 2001

Google

Hi Guys

I am a new member so sorry if its a repost of any sort

I have the Loan Agreement with me pages 3/4 of 5.

There is no siginature of mine on the 2 forms is this Loan agreement legal if thats the right word. Or can it be written off.

the other thing is the PPI as this was said I needed to take this to get the Loan, It says

"Optional Loan Repayment Protection " this box is ticked
"Premium advanced as part of the loan" this box is ticked

On these grounds can I claim mis-selling?

Please Help

di3004

Google wrote: »

Hi Guys

I am a new member so sorry if its a repost of any sort

I have the Loan Agreement with me pages 3/4 of 5.

There is no siginature of mine on the 2 forms is this Loan agreement legal if thats the right word. Or can it be written off.

the other thing is the PPI as this was said I needed to take this to get the Loan, It says

"Optional Loan Repayment Protection " this box is ticked
"Premium advanced as part of the loan" this box is ticked

On these grounds can I claim mis-selling?

Please Help

Hi there hun
There are some posts on the PPI RECLAIMING-DISCUSSION THREAD for you.;)

Also Welcome.:A

Di
x

Google

Cheers Di
will have a look

Google

Can this loan be written off as there is no signature of mine on the agreement, the agreement consists of 5 sheets, customer copy sheets 3/4 of the 5

jackyboy

Google wrote: »

Can this loan be written off as there is no signature of mine on the agreement, the agreement consists of 5 sheets, customer copy sheets 3/4 of the 5

Did you get the money? If so, then you don't have any right to try and have the loan written off, for both legal and moral reasons. If you didn't get the money then of course you can try and get the loan written off.

As for the loan protection insurance - I worked at Lloyds during this period and can confirm that pretty much everyone was mis-selling the loan protection insurance. If you say the rights things you'll probably get it back, but I don't personally know much about the complaints/claim procedure. Much to my amusement, I've only just found out that all this mis-sold and overpriced protection is now being refunded - nice to see that there is some justice and consumer protection in the UK.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

jackyboy wrote: »

Did you get the money? If so, then you don't have any right to try and have the loan written off, for both legal and moral reasons. If you didn't get the money then of course you can try and get the loan written off.

As for the loan protection insurance - I worked at Lloyds during this period and can confirm that pretty much everyone was mis-selling the loan protection insurance. If you say the rights things you'll probably get it back, but I don't personally know much about the complaints/claim procedure. Much to my amusement, I've only just found out that all this mis-sold and overpriced protection is now being refunded - nice to see that there is some justice and consumer protection in the UK.

How can you say in your first paragraph, 'you don't have any right to try and have the loan written off', and then in your second paragraph say you say you 'can confirm tha pretty much everybody was mis-selling the PPI'?

If the bank could have got away with taking his/her money for the full loan term, then they would have been laughing. He has every right to try and stuff the bank as they tried to stuff him! If YOU knew that PPI was being mis-sold then the likelyhood is that the bank did also but turned a blind eye due to the potential income.

It's payback time for the consumer.

jackyboy

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

How can you say in your first paragraph, 'you don't have any right to try and have the loan written off', and then in your second paragraph say you say you 'can confirm tha pretty much everybody was mis-selling the PPI'?

If the bank could have got away with taking his/her money for the full loan term, then they would have been laughing. He has every right to try and stuff the bank as they tried to stuff him! If YOU knew that PPI was being mis-sold then the likelyhood is that the bank did also but turned a blind eye due to the potential.

It's payback time for the consumer.

He has every right to claim back the insurance, as he was probably mis-sold it and it's a rip off. I wish him and everyone else the best of luck in pursuing their claims against these greedy banks. However, from his post it looks like he wants the whole loan written off due to his signature not being on his customer copy, which he has no right to at all. If this is what he's asking (it's not completely clear from his post) then it's a completely different issue to the PPI. He got the money, he spent it, now he should pay it back - that was my point. If he believes he's different from everyone else who has to pay back money lent to them then he's in for a bit of a shock.

If I've misread his post, then I apologise.

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

jackyboy wrote: »

He has every right to claim back the insurance, as he was probably mis-sold it and it's a rip off. I wish him and everyone else the best of luck in pursuing their claims against these greedy banks. However, from his post it looks like he wants the whole loan written off due to his signature not being on his customer copy, which he has no right to at all. If this is what he's asking (it's not completely clear from his post) then it's a completely different issue to the PPI. He got the money, he spent it, now he should pay it back - that was my point. If he believes he's different from everyone else who has to pay back money lent to them then he's in for a bit of a shock.

If I've misread his post, then I apologise.

I think you read his post correctly, but what I am saying is, if the Bank tried to rip him off, why shouldn't he try and rip the bank off?

jackyboy

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax wrote: »

I think you read his post correctly, but what I am saying is, if the Bank tried to rip him off, why shouldn't he try and rip the bank off?

If he thinks that because his copy of the loan agreement doesn't have his signature on it then he can have the loan written off, then he's living in cloud cuckoo land. Customer copies don't have the signature on, they're simply copies of the agreement. They will have copies of the agreement with his signature and even if they didn't, they'd have records of the money going into the account and him spending it, CCTV footage of him signing the loan agreement, etc etc. Why in the world should he get a free loan? No-one else does. Other than the potentially mis-sold insurance, the bank and the world owes him nothing. I'm sure if he'd been sick he would have claimed on the insurance, so if he gets the money back he did get the (admittedly pretty rubbish) protection for free during this time.

The sooner he forgets about free money and concentrates on going through the correct procedures to claiming back mis-sold insurance, the better.

petermb_2

jackyboy wrote: »

If he thinks that because his copy of the loan agreement doesn't have his signature on it then he can have the loan written off, then he's living in cloud cuckoo land. Customer copies don't have the signature on, they're simply copies of the agreement. They will have copies of the agreement with his signature and even if they didn't, they'd have records of the money going into the account and him spending it, CCTV footage of him signing the loan agreement, etc etc. Why in the world should he get a free loan? No-one else does. Other than the potentially mis-sold insurance, the bank and the world owes him nothing. I'm sure if he'd been sick he would have claimed on the insurance, so if he gets the money back he did get the (admittedly pretty rubbish) protection for free during this time.

The sooner he forgets about free money and concentrates on going through the correct procedures to claiming back mis-sold insurance, the better.

The Consumer Credit Act does not actually agree with you regarding this issue.
But to answer the OP's original question, although in theory if you have an agreement that is not signed by both parties the loan could be deemed to be unenforceable as it is contrary to the CCA. However, in practice if this is the only issue then it is likely that a court would side with the borrower.

Mis- selling is only one issue that relates to PPI. In setting up these rediculously expensive rip offs the lenders also break a few laws in the process. In such instances the client will be entitled to more than just the premiums refunded. They will also be due compensation and interest.

petermb_2

Sorry...correction...my post was meant to say that should the lack of signature be the only issue it is UNLIKELY that a court would side with the borrower.

Apologies