Defective Loan Facility Agreement

silvercar

1. Interest rate in the agreement is defined "as per table 1 below". Problem is there is a table but is not labelled table 1

If there is only one table shown then you will have a hard job showing that the table is not table 1. Its the one and only table on that page so the fact it is missing its title is not going to alter the legality of the document.

2. Interest rate in table says rate is base + 1/50% but i have been charged base + 1.5%. Base + 1/50% is 0.02% according to my calculations

Look at your keyboard the "." is next to the "/" - plausible typing error. So it was on the document the year before just implies a cut and paste job.

As for the maths, two line symbols written on one line are ambiguous. one fiftieth is written as one over fifty, with a percent sign, this can equal 2 in some interpretations. If you accept that "/" is divide then everything before the slash is the numerator and everything after the denominator. so you have a numerator of 1 and a denominator of 50%. 50% is a half, 1 divided by a half is 2.

Think that you should be grateful you have been charged 1.5% not 2%; by your claim that they have to honour the letter of what they have written.

Cleansanchez

Got to say that 'entertaining' is the last word I expected to use when describing my experience of a mortgage chat room!

Sorry Sanj, I apologise for the useless nature of this post in relation to your original question.

sanjtheman

your name says it all......

sanjtheman

Silver thanks - there are two tables ! and am no maths expert like fool but 1/50% is only 2 if its 1/(50%)

There were no brackets in the equation and as emeritus professor of mathematics and mortgage advice will no doubt be able to confirm, basic rule of maths is that equations are solved from left to right......

As I said there is a precedent from FSO where they ruled against a lender where interest rate was said to be confusing and unclear.....

One last thing, if it doesn't matter why the loan documentation needs to be accurate, what was the point of them asking me to sign and return ? Also why was there a ruling on the enforceability of credit cards CCA 1974 ?

Sanchez re entertaining he does kids birthday parties as well

Sanj (I may not be a highly qualified mortgage advisor but I can add up and am asking about contract law)

nw_man

Look Sanj, firstly if its contract law you want why post on a mortgage/endowment forum ?

Secondly, what gets peoples goats, mine included, is the fact that it looks like you are simply trying to wriggle out of paying back what you happily took in the first place.

It stinks, so do all the people who are currently trying to wriggle out of paying for their credit card debt and/ or loan debts.

Who do you think pays ? Evereyone else, that is who !

opinions4u

Simple question then:

What rate/product did you agree to pay at application stage?

Was this based on informed choice or advice?

The product agreed at that point in time forms part of the contractual agreement.

Anything that deviates from this can clearly be argued as an error in paperwork.

Get a solicitor. Go to court. Then arrange the remortgage to pay all the costs.

sanjtheman

Cor

So many negative responses (but not all) to my question about a loan agreement where the interest rate quoted does not tie in to the one I am being charged.....

Hmmm.....not sure why these people didn't post similar comments on the forum related to the CCA credit card refunds .....maybe they are genuinely the type who would never challenge incorrectly issued car parking tickets and fines......maybe they are also the type of people who would sign up to anti bullying campaigns at their kids school......got an idea though I will try and use a caucasian name on the forum next time.......that reminds me I wonder how the recent local elections are going to go with respect to the minority parties ?.....

NW Man......am very sorry didnt realise this was your board and forum........next time when I have a mortgage contract query, I will ask your permission first and post on the utilities forum.....

Just for the record opinions - there was no illustration or initial product offer......valuation was arranged and offer was forwarded.....at that time maybe you are too young to remember base + 0.02% was a reasonable offer at the time but not outstanding (intelligent finance had base - .25%)....however your advice is so good I will now stop going to ombudsman and employ a solicitor as you say to lose the case......even though I have personal legal cover

Lastly and definately not leastly dunstonh......think a better name for a new forum would be moneystupidexpert.......

Sanj

PS Friend of mine (called John Smith) just found out that Halifax has been overcharging him on his business account. Any advice ?

opinions4u

Suit yourself.

If you don't answer the questions, I can't change my view.

sanjtheman

such a cool club....dont forget to call yourself something like the T Birds or something

silvercar

There were no brackets in the equation and as emeritus professor of mathematics and mortgage advice will no doubt be able to confirm, basic rule of maths is that equations are solved from left to right......

Basic rule of maths is called BODMAS (google it if you need help).

BODMAS is the order you do multi part functions. Brackets, Of, Division, Multiply, Addition, Subtraction. Forget your left to right eg 3+4x7=31 not 49.

Anyway here you are arguing whether 1/50% is one divided by 50% or one-fiftieth as a per cent. By your logic to get to 0.02 it should have been written as (1/50)%.

I'd be careful, a judge thinking your claim is a waste of time could say 1/50% =
1 . =2%
50%