Handing my car back

samba

cureforsanity wrote: »

I don't see how having a snipe at my personal thoughts will solve anything, my employment status and what I do running any vehicle and buying or selling it are none of your business frankly.

I was merely adding a few personal observations after trying to get to the bottom of this.

There not really personal once you have posted them to a PUBLIC forum, or are you a solipsist and believe they we all exist only in your head?

Either way, I think you have had some good clear advice in this thread, but unfortunately it seems that it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear. That happens a lot to all of us - the only thing now is to work out the best course of action now you are better informed about your position. Good luck!

cyril82

more supporting text for the op, this time from CAB about the requirements under the Consumer Credit act when drawing up agreements.

Consumer Credit Act 1974
If you enter into a credit agreement which is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act, you must be given a written copy of the agreement when you take out the loan. This must set out:

• what type of credit agreement it is, for example, credit sale, hire purchase or conditional sale
• the true cost of the credit, worked out according to a special formula (APR)
• the amount of each payment, when it is due to be paid, and how it is made up (loan, interest, administration charge)
• your cancellation rights and whether you can pay off the debt early (see under heading Paying the loan off early).

so it would appear that in the absence of the two points in red, your agreement was not properly drawn up, you would need to get it checked out but if those two simple points were omitted i suspect there will be further omissions.

Note: to brock...if you insist on arguing and patronising, just be aware that that is now, the O.F.T And CAB that print text that supports my understanding of the terms "credit agreement" and contradicts your arrogant ramblings..

Sometimes it's better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

~Brock~

cyril82 wrote: »

more supporting text for the op, this time from CAB about the requirements under the Consumer Credit act when drawing up agreements.

Consumer Credit Act 1974
If you enter into a credit agreement which is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act, you must be given a written copy of the agreement when you take out the loan. This must set out:

• what type of credit agreement it is, for example, credit sale, hire purchase or conditional sale
• the true cost of the credit, worked out according to a special formula (APR)
• the amount of each payment, when it is due to be paid, and how it is made up (loan, interest, administration charge)
• your cancellation rights and whether you can pay off the debt early (see under heading Paying the loan off early).

so it would appear that in the absence of the two points in red, your agreement was not properly drawn up, you would need to get it checked out but if those two simple points were omitted i suspect there will be further omissions.

Note: to brock...if you insist on arguing and patronising, just be aware that that is now, the O.F.T And CAB that print text that supports my understanding of the terms "credit agreement" and contradicts your arrogant ramblings..

the following is taken from the Consumer Credit (Agreement)(Amendment) Regulations 2004. (A document which I happen to have a pretty good working knowledge of).

10. - (1) Schedule 1 (information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements other than modifying agreements) shall be amended as follows.

(2) For paragraph 1 substitute -

1. All types. " (1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, a heading in one of the following forms of words -

(a) "Hire-Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; (b) "Conditional Sale Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; (c) "Fixed-Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; or (d) "Credit Card Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974",

as the case may require.

(2) If none of the headings in 1(a) to (d) above are applicable a heading in the following form of words - "Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974".

(3) Where the document and a pawn-receipt are combined, the words ", and Pawn Receipt," shall be inserted in the heading after the word "Agreement".

(4) Where the document embodies an agreement of which at least one part is a credit agreement not regulated by the Act, the word "partly" shall be inserted before "regulated" unless the regulated and unregulated parts of the agreement are clearly separate.

(5) Where the credit is being secured on land the words "secured on" followed by the address of the land shall be inserted at the end of the heading.

cyril82 wrote: »

Sometimes it's better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

I think that is probably the only thing we appear to agree upon;)

cyril82

~Brock~ wrote: »

the following is taken from the Consumer Credit (Agreement)(Amendment) Regulations 2004. (A document which I happen to have a pretty good working knowledge of).

10. - (1) Schedule 1 (information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements other than modifying agreements) shall be amended as follows.

(2) For paragraph 1 substitute -

1. All types. " (1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, a heading in one of the following forms of words -

• (a) "Hire-Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974";
  
  (b) "Conditional Sale Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974";
  
  (c) "Fixed-Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"; or
  
  (d) "Credit Card Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974",
  

as the case may require.

(2) If none of the headings in 1(a) to (d) above are applicable a heading in the following form of words - "Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974".

(3) Where the document and a pawn-receipt are combined, the words ", and Pawn Receipt," shall be inserted in the heading after the word "Agreement".

(4) Where the document embodies an agreement of which at least one part is a credit agreement not regulated by the Act, the word "partly" shall be inserted before "regulated" unless the regulated and unregulated parts of the agreement are clearly separate.

(5) Where the credit is being secured on land the words "secured on" followed by the address of the land shall be inserted at the end of the heading.



I think that is probably the only thing we appear to agree upon;)

Thanks for that brock, it's all totally right. i'm not arguing with the consumer credit act. However, i don't understand why you posted a piece of information that supports my view and not your own..:think:

The bit you highlighted in red states that the term Credit agreement on it's own is to be used when none of the headings from 1(a) to 1(d) apply...

But the one GLAREING problem being that it still doesn't mean that this heading constitutes an unsecured personal loan, not least because in the section 1(a) to 1(d) THERE IS a heading that applies to unsecured personal loans and that is ...

"Fixed-Sum Loan Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974"


so thanks for providing that, and now we have....

1. the o.f.t supports my view that "credit agreement" does not mean unsecured personal loan
2. CAB guidance that "credit agreement" does not mean unsecured personal loan
3. The consumer credit act it's self supports my view that "credit agreement" does not mean unsecured loan, as such an agreement is defined as a "fixed sum loan agreement"

the floor is now all yours..try to convince the world you're right but i think i have supported my view threefold now and i am bowing out of any further debate with you...i made some early assumptions, based mainly on having purchased 15 vehicles for personal and business use over the last ten years, most with some form of financing and never have i had an unsecured loan other than when i arranged the finance myself... that was wrong and i should have based my advice on actual cases i have come across but at least i had the grace to admit my presumption and go away and come back with some constructive and accurate advice for the op, supported by several relevant and respected sources. while you merely patronised and preached and your only attempt to provide a document to support your view actually discredited it.

I don't need to say anymore...;)

~Brock~

cyril where on earth are you trying to go with this?

Earlier you were banging on about the fact that agreements cannot be called just 'Credit Agreement regulated by etc etc' in their heading. When I posted details of the actual legislation that confirms that agreements can indeed be described as this (which confirmed that your assumption was incorrect) you turned it around to claim some kind of victory?

I'm not in this to score points against you, because I cannot be bothered if the truth was told, but I will point out errors or plain misunderstandings about what is legal and what isn't, for the benefit of the OP.

You may well be correct in that the agreement should have been described as a fixed sum loan agreement instead, but I suspect that the agreement may employ a variable rate (the Funding Corporation have been known to employ these types of agreements). If that is the case, the wording 'Fixed-Sum' will not apply.

In addition to this, the rights of the OP in relation to handing the car back (which if you remember was subject of the original post) have not been prejudiced in any way because even if it is a 'fixed sum loan agreement' it still would offer no right to terminate half way through.

You will no doubt continue your tirade against me, but I am truly sorry that you have such bitterness against anyone who posts contrary to the world according to cyril.

cyril82

Brock, i am not conducting any tirade. I am not bitter. What i take offence to is being patronised, especially when the person patronising me is wrong.

I did not say No agreement can be headed "credit agreement" i said agreements should be descriptive and the term "credit agreement" is non-descriptive.

To which, while in the process of patronising me, you claim the term "credit agreement" on it's own was descriptive because by omission it meant unsecured loan. - I proved that to be false, not because i am conducting a tirade, but because you patronised me and were attempting to make me look a fool, implying i do not know what i am talking about, well, i think i returned the favour. If your going to dish out these insults.....

Also while i was defending myself against your barrage of insults and attempts to discredit me i was also providing information, backed up with supporting documents, that may be of use to the op who after establishing that they do have an unsecured loan (at least in the eye of the lender) is not satisfied that his agreement states this and may want to challenge them, according to the O.F.T, CAB and The Consumer credit act, his agreement seems like it may not have been drawn up correctly and so i offered info and links for him to research the matter further.

So, in fact my posts were not all about brock, sorry to burst your bubble, i was merely replying to your insults, and discrediting your arrogant ramblings while offering helpful advice to the op.

You seem to be the one conducting a tirade as you not only patronised and offended me, but the op as well.

Sometimes, if you have nothing helpful to say, it's better to say nothing at all.

standupguy

Oh what fun we are having with this thread!

The bottom line here, because it stands out a mile, is that Brock, like myself, have specialist insider knowledge from working within the industry and know how these things work.

On the other hand Cyril has bought a car or two and knows how to use google.

Let the readers make up their own minds on whose advice to take!

angelicmary85

cyril82 wrote: »

oh, thats alright then, the op must have an unsecured personal loan because you did. :rolleyes:

That's not what I said...you said you didn't believe that it could be done...I was just telling you it could be

cureforsanity

Okey dokey chaps, just got back from th local CAB who were charming but unfortunately ineffectual as advised by Brock and others but no matter, one step at a time!!

Anyway, I've been in contact with a solicitor who 'specialises in these things' I'll say it like that until I've actually had my free 20 minute consultation with him!

Basically the concensus is that if it IS an HP agreement then we can do a VT on it. If it's NOT then he reckons the agreement hasn't been drawn up properly, so hopefully it'll be a win-win situation!

That will be next week though, so I'm going to enjoy the sunshine (while it lasts!) and bank holiday weekend.

Thanks all so far anyway.

cyril82

standupguy wrote: »

Oh what fun we are having with this thread!

The bottom line here, because it stands out a mile, is that Brock, like myself, have specialist insider knowledge from working within the industry and know how these things work.

On the other hand Cyril has bought a car or two and knows how to use google.

Let the readers make up their own minds on whose advice to take!

oh my......You are going to claim "specialist insider knowledge" when i have used documentation from THE O.F.T, CAB, and THE consumer Credit Act, to prove my point, while dis-proving your own??

Perhaps you do have "insider knowledge" from working in the industry, but what you demonstrate by spewing it all over this thread is those inside the industry know more about how to interpret the law to suit their own needs than they do about how the law actually applies to them.

Not to mention your demonstration that those working within the industry seem to think they regulate the O.F.T and that the consumer credit act is there to be ignored as they see fit.

• You claimed (as did brock...same person??) that credit agreement by omission meant unsecured...i disagree and also provide O.F.T documentation that supports my objection and states "credit agreements" can be secured.

Therefore i agree, let the people reading this draw their own conclusions on what advice to take...my humble advise based on consumer experience, both first hand and in my professional life, which is supported by O.F.T and CAB and Consumer credit Act documentation within this thread..or the arrogant and pompous advice from brock and standupguy, rammed down the throats of other posters here with no more supporting text that the sickening mutual self appreciation of two very arrogant people who share a love of preaching information in forums peppered with insults and patronisation with scant regard for whether or not the information they are giving is actually correct...

Note to brock & standupguy:- if you disagree with my last claim that you have scant regard for whether or not your information is correct, please see previous posts in which, not me, but the wording of the O.F.T, CAB, and consumer credit act, proves you were wrong. I will not reply to you merely to reiterate this point...it's written for all to see.