The Most Shocking CCA Ever Constructed

looking4justice

Well thought I would post up to get some answers to my concerns and share my thoughts & facts which will hopefully help others,

Sorry about the length of post / but worth a read to see the way these sharks operate and hide the true facts , how they fake documents to TRY and back up they lies and deciet and hide the dirty business they do ,...

We now have 2 signed agreements and how very different they both are ,.. the second one sent is the killer ,..and someone will be losing some sleep over this mistake and possibly they job ,.. they would not comply to CPR request for underwriters sheet ,.. and more or less said prove secret commissions ,..

I did get a copy of agreement from G E , ...as soon as i seen the agreement i knew it was a fake and definately fraud of some kind even though it had my signature on it,.. it looked spot on , but the give away was that my brokers fee (which i pointed out to them was added to the loan and been subject to interest charge for 7 years,) had changed to a PPI ?????? and after scratching my head noticed that my broker had changed also, it was no longer Ocean Finance , it was some company called "Central Marketing Limited" CML,....

I am thinking this is pure FRAUD ,.. they is no other way to put it ,... So i continue to read the lies in the agreement & letter attached,.. they say i need to take secret commissions up with broker ,.. (what a broker i never used?????) and if you are unsuccessful in your quest you might find the reason is because these brokers do not trade anymore ,.. smart a*se's

you know what i did next , yes i googled this company , guess what nothing comes back !!!, I check to see if they hold or ever held a credit license , yes you guessed nothing !!! I google the address supplied , Bingo we have a hit , But not quite they yet ,.. as this company is "Central Trust Limited"
CTL /well I am thinking straight away , these have same address same office numbers , CTL / CML must be a match ,.. I call them and ask about CML "Central Marketing Limited" the guy says never heard of them!! i explianed they use the same address as yourselves and names very alike starting and ending the same,.. the guy state he has worked for CTL for a number of years and that address as always been they place of business ,.. I said i must have my wires crossed , it must be "Central Trust Limited" he offered to check the records Bingo I knew they could not have anything on me , as i have never done business with either company period ,.. the guy comes back and kindly states that they do not have any records under my name , we had a further conversation and he says was it secured loan or mortgage ? I say mortgage second charge ,.. after 10 minutes he comes back and says Mrs Smiley face I have checked all our records under Mrs Smiley face and under your postcode , thats loans/secured loans / & mortgages and you are not in our record sorry ,..

Sorry you just give me a late xmas present , and the last part was taped for future evidence ,... next job Ocean Finance ,.. so we need to play clever with these ,.. I could remember the underwriters name and colour of his team ,.. so i asked for him (just to prove it was not me going simple), told it was his day off can i help ,.. I asked for £30k loan !!! said i was a previous customer asked for postcode , details appear "Hello Mrs Smiley face can i put you through to underwriters , said no i am happy to talk with you , put on hold for 15 minutes , she came back and said you cancelled your agreement with us , asked who lender would of been if i completed ? First National (now G E MONEY) , and date cancelled was exactly 14 days before i signed agreement ,

so in 14 days since i cancelled with Ocean Finance , i contacted another broker , he done his checks and searches , found me the best loan to suit my needs ,forwarded me a copy get my signature in place and me send it back , give me 7 days cooling of period without contacting me , further docs to sign then suppose to be another 7 days if i remember rightly ,.. impossible as also 2 weekends within them 14 days , and the best bit is my lenders were the same First National /G E MONEY,... why would i change brokers then?? I try to get the girl on the phone to put our conversation into writing , which she refused point blank , I asked her for her name as not happy with her responces , she refused point blank ,.. I asked her why after 7 years , if i cancelled my agreement so in reality just an application (as never seen it through) would you know my name and details just from the postcode i give you , surely you do not keep all aplication , especially 7 years later ,... at this point pretty annoyed

I called G E MONEY to ask for my details on the broker as the address supplied was wrong as CTL ,.. I was given another address and directors name as point of contact !!!! I called OFT with address supplied they checked out Central Marketing Limited , I am saying they do not exsist , the OFT point out they run under CTL Central Trust Limited ,.. that explains the same address ,.. Well this starts getting better (CML director and contact name is the same as CTL),..as we have these on tape saying that this company does not have any dealing with me ,.. OFT pointed out some other companies running under CTL , Central Broker Limited / Central Mortgage Limited ,.. and the brokers could only work & supply leads to Central Mortgages Limited ,.. so how could the broker side step they sister company who they are tied to to offer the application to First National ? and if they never done this , then why would a mortgage provider pass customers to other lenders? especially as someone must be paying brokers wages!! wouldthis point to SECRET COMMISSIONS PAID,.. it has to in reality as it certainly does not make sense , to say both Central Companies never recieved nothing in return ,... as my agreement appears if i never paid a brokers fee ,... and it certainaly does not show the lender paid , so who did ? and after reading all the T's & C's , no mention of the broker might recieve a commission !!!
totally consealed ,...

I was that amazed at the agreement i call ramdomly to request another as every thing was white in the agreement , no background , as would be they if a close copy ,... well the second agreement arrived , it is a close copy alright and background grey as imaging the colour in the original agreement , were as first agreement was copied with brightness high to conceal marks visible to the eye,...

the latest one was dynomite ,.. in the signature part held to the light you can see my signature crossing each other one is about 2mm off linning up ,.. from the front on all looks normal ,.. until you look at the box with signature from FN employee , it has a line running corner to corner , other box at the side of this also a line through (this box had nothing within , would this line placed imply that the box had no signature within before it was an void section due to placement of line?????? so from no agreement , to 2 agreements ,.. and one showing Fraud , double signature is fraud ,.. but without the second agreement would of been snookered , as the 1st agreement had the lines removed and showed no double signature ,

what are peoples thoughts on this ,.. and i was thinking of contacting the fraud squad ,.. as if my agreement is displaying this made up company they want me to believe ,.. well thats fraud and whilst they show this as my agreement I feel i should not continue to pay it as i never signed or agreed to this agreement,

POINT 2
I am pleased with the Detective work and the new evidence I have collected which includes full statement of account , this itself is quite interesting also , How would one stand if it can be proven that this account was put into arrears from day one and continued throughout the 7 years to collect a monthly interest charge which was around £220 at the start raising to £450 per month at this present day ,.. my monthly payments only £260 month ,.. I was contracted to make my 1st payment 4 weeks after advance recieved , 1 week before 1st payment due we were kindly charged interest , 1 week later we pay our payment at the beginning of the month (not knowing about the interest charge) as this interest charge was added to our balance our account would continue to be in arreas ,.. as this will explain , at the end of this month 1 week before our second payment due we get hit with a interest charge £221 , again we pay our payment not realising infact our balance is increasing !!! and that was the tone set , the interest charges continue to increase as the months and years pass ,..
Also I have come to a conclussion that they use another trick to get the account into arrears (they love this way of operating as interest is charged on total balance £30k +,..) As soon as you have paid the 1st payment interest rate will increase ,,,my first payment £260 @ 8% before the 2nd payment is due the interest rate is 8.4 , so inreality your monthly payment of £260 will not cover this , and these tiny little amounts are enough to put you in arrears and justify the month interest charges of £220+ my interest would finally reach 12.9 % which would be around £345 per month to pay , so if my monthly payment stays the same then were does the extra £85 per month go? well its added to balance every month !! then we have the interest charge end of each month £230
so our monthly payment does not touch the balance and never will , our payment is eaten up and £315 per month kindly added to balance , a balance which continues to grow with no light at the end of the tunnel , no finish date

This is definately not right , so we read and re read the conditions on the rear of our agreement ,.. and we got the answer to our concerns of no end date insight ,..

"Unless FN choose to increase the number of monthly repayment instalments payable under this agreement, the remaining amount due on the loan will be payable in full at the time that the last monthly repayment falls due"

so as the balance is £14k higher then start of agreement , and we have 18 years left of a 25 year agreement , so averaging £2k per year ,looking on bright side thats another £36k + £14k = £50k

so I struggle along for the next 18 years to get rid of these sharks ,.. by the time its paid I am a (tired)frail old lady ,.. ready for a rest ,.. but no these sharks will request £50k payment
£50k that they secrectly have been saving up , ... how would one cover this debt owed ???????? well if it never finished you off , suppose you could remortgage with them lol ,..

and all started with a unlawful £220 interest charge which was obviously a mistake ,.. a costly mistake at that for me , but definately to they advantage ,.. £50k at least advantage ,.. you would never believe £220 could cause so much damage

and you need to check your full statement of accounts , as could be happening to you

POINT 3
when you think it can not get worse , here is what started all this off ,.. I had a suspended repossession order , I offered to pay double payments to catch up on arrears ,.. the missed payments ,.. I thought the best way to catch up ,... £260 for normal monthly payment , and £260 to reduce the arrears ,..

just before the date before we thought the arrears would be cleared we phoned G E to make card payment and requested statements to confirm the reduction in arrears and next payment to clear them ,.. well we were very shocked to realise that the arrears and balance had infact increased ,.. the reason why is quite simple ,.. the monthly interest charge was now £335 per month ,.. and this would be applied the week after payment ,.. (double payment) ,.. the extra £260 arrears payment was eaten up by the interest charge and the £75 gets added to the "secret savings account" they seem to think they have , (added to balance ) so in fact the balance would continue to grow to the advantage of lenders ,

but this would not be the case if the mistake interest charge at beginning of agreement was not mistakenly place on account giving the impression and making it legal for every other interest charge to follow each month , which surely has happened,.. well when we see this we contacted them and request our CCA as we were going to see a solicitor ,..we were told if i agreeded it will be delt with in house and payments frozen till resolved which was only fair ,.. i agreed and give them the benefit of doubt ,..

guess how they thank you ,.. by leaving it for 18 (total) then send us a letter saying we had 2 weeks to leave the property just before xmas , and as a goodbye (xmas pressie) £6,000 arrears from the 18 month they take the p*ss (sorry about language really annoy me when i think deeply about it ) 18 month whilst on a suspended repo order , no payments , so how can they even think of saying i never contacted them and they never suggested payments would be frozen ,.. because if i never contacted them , then surely thats putting me in the worsest situation ever ignoring my lenders ,.. they know they are in the wrong , can not wait to see what they say on this point ,.. divide and conquer i believe is the phrase i was looking for

looking4justice

Well think this will address our situation ,.. why fight secret commissions ,.. why waste time contesting the broker ,.. especially as judges are lender friendly ,.. will just shoot for unfair conditions but still contact the FOS as diddled kindly pointed out ,.. well below is very important should things become complicated ,..

The Consumer Credit Act 2006
What will the new regime mean for lenders?
One of the most controversial elements of the latest Consumer Credit Act, is the new concept of an ‘unfair credit transaction’. This will come into force on 6 April 2007 and empower consumers to challenge a wide range of contract terms and lender practices as unfair. It is designed to replace the existing ‘extortionate credit’ test under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act), which has been criticised as too narrow.
Also from 6 April 2007, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) jurisdiction is extended to encompass all consumer credit lending. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to how the new law will be implemented and in particular, whether we can expect to see more agreements being found to be unenforceable.

The need for change
Under the 1974 Act, a credit bargain is extortionate if it requires the borrower to make payments which are ‘grossly exorbitant ’ or otherwise ‘grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing’. The court may re-open an agreement found to be extortionate so as to do justice between the parties.
The extortionate credit test has been widely criticised. According to the DTI, since the inception of the Act ‘only about 30 extortionate credit cases are known to have reached the courts and, of those, only ten were proven’ (‘Fair Clear and Competitive – the consumer credit market in the 21st century’ DTI White Paper December 2003).
The White Paper, which led to the changes under the 2006 Act, proposed to redress what it saw as the key failings of the test by;

*allowing consumers to challenge lender behaviour after an agreement is made
shifting the focus from cost to take in other factors, such as the level of security required, default charges and lack of transparent information
*making it easier faster and cheaper to challenge an agreement with a new Alternative Dispute Resolution (via the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

The new unfairness test
The Consumer Credit Act 2006 aims to ‘enhance consumer rights and redress by empowering consumers to challenge unfair lending and through more effective options for resolving disputes.’ The new, more flexible, framework under clause 19 provides that an agreement may be found to be ‘unfair’ because of;
its terms, or the terms of any related agreement (i.e any previous agreement with the lender consolidated by the new agreement and any linked transaction, such as payment protection insurance
the way on which the creditor has exercised or enforced his rights under the agreement or any related agreement
anything else done, or not done, by or on behalf of the creditor (before or after the agreement, or any related agreement, is made)

Some commentators have contrasted the systems on the basis that the extortionate test was about cost and the new test takes in all aspects of the relationship. The reality is more complex. Although charges are central to the notion of an extortionate bargain they have never been a prerequisite to a successful claim. Under the old test an agreement could be struck down if it ‘grossly contravened the principles of fair dealing’ even if the borrower’s financial obligations were not ‘grossly exorbitant’. Relevant factors included the age, health, capacity and business experience of the debtor, whether they were under financial pressure, the creditor’s risk, relevant to the value of any security and any other relevant considerations.
The key difference is that when deciding if an agreement was extortionate, these factors were only taken into account at the time the agreement was made. The new test is much broader. The court can have regard to all matters it considers relevant any stage during the relationship, i.e. when the loan is sold, when it is entered into, when it is in force and after it has ended.

Remedies
If the court finds that the relationship between borrower and lender is unfair, it has a wide range of remedies including;
*requiring the creditor to repay any sum paid by the debtor
*ordering the creditor to act or cease to act in a particular way in connection with the agreement
*reducing the amount payable under the agreement
*directing the return of any security under the agreement
*altering any of the terms of the agreement.


Key Concerns
There are a number of areas of concern about the new provisions:
Wide scope
This is an extremely wide provision – any agreement providing credit of any amount is captured. Regulated mortgage contracts are excluded under section 19(5), however, this only covers FSA regulated mortgage contracts. Those entered into before 31 October 2004 will come under the new test.
The entire relationship is subject to the unfairness rules; i.e. all dealings before, during and after the contract is made. There is no limit as to time, either. Expired agreements may be subject to a claim. Section 19(4) expressly provides that ‘a determination may be made in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended’

Actions under the unfairness provision may be brought by consumers individually and by the OFT exercising its powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This enables the OFT to take enforcement action against lenders where unfair relationships affect consumers generally. Examples given in the House of Lords include where a lender uses standard terms or operates in a common manner in respect of borrowers generally so as to make each relationship unfair. OFT guidance will provide further information on how these powers will be used.

Uncertainty
The lack of definition or guidance as to what will constitute an unfair relationship is undesirable for consumers and lenders. All the indications, from the White Paper to more recent DTI and government publications, as well as Parliamentary comment, suggest that the courts and the FOS are to be encouraged to take the widest possible view of the term ‘unfair relationship.’
The Government rejected attempts to amend the Bill to require regulations to be made indicating the circumstances in which the relationship between the creditor and debtor may be regarded unfair. They have argued that this would undermine the flexibility of the provisions. They contend that to give undue emphasis to some things by spelling them out would necessarily limit the range of issues that the court may consider and risk creating a ‘box-ticking’ mentality amongst lenders which would shift emphasis from the substance to the form of the lender/borrower relationship.

For lenders, it is a question of trying to piece together available information to try and anticipate how the courts will intrpret the provision. Fairness clearly goes beyond the transparency of the agreement. If not, compliance with the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 2004 would be sufficient to make any agreement fair.
The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (24 October 2005) offered some views on where lenders should look for guidance:

‘We consider there to be suitable guidance available to the meaning of ‘unfair’ in the case-law interpreting the same term in other, closely analagous statutory contexts, in particular the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The House of Lords in a recent decision (The Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52) gave extensive consideration to the meaning of ‘unfair’ in those Regulations in the specific context of a credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.’

Under the 1999 Regulations (regulation 4 and schedule 2) a term is unfair if it;
*causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations
*to the detriment of the consumer and
*is contrary to good faith.

Examples include;
forcing a consumer in breach to pay disproportionately high compensation
irrevocably binding a consumer on terms with which he had no opportunity to become familiar before the conclusion of the contract
allowing the seller/supplier to alter unilaterally, without valid reason, any characteristics of the product or service provided.

The House of Lords expanded upon these principles in the First National case, suggesting that fairness required;
no significant imbalance between the parties. This may arise where the supplier is granted a beneficial option or discretion or power, or a disadvantageous burden, risk or duty is imposed upon the consumer

*fair and open dealings
*full, clear and legible terms with no concealed pitfalls or traps
*appropriate prominence for terms which might disadvantage the consumer
not taking advantage, deliberately or unconsciously, of the consumer's necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter, weak bargaining position or any other relevant factor.
These illustrations are a good starting point, but policy makers comments suggest that the interpretation of unfairness may go much further. Taken to its most extreme, the new regime may impose a requirement on lenders to undertake and verify fact finds about potential borrowers. Not only about their financial circumstances, but about their personal circumstances, their health, and medical history.

Lenders can anticipate a considerable period of uncertainty until some decisions on what constitutes unfairness start to filter through. A piecemeal and unsatisfactory solution. Of even greater concern is that fact that the standard will not be established by the courts alone – FOS, a rather different animal, and, most importantly, free to consumers, is likely to be their first port of call, and therefore to set precedents.

The Financial Services Ombudsman
One of the most significant changes for lenders is that all customers of consumer credit licence holder will have access, free of charge, to an Alternative Dispute Mechanism in the form of the Financial Services Ombudsman (FOS). FOS will have jurisdiction over any act or omission by a consumer credit licensee in the course of a licensed business.

To date, only customers of FSA-regulated lenders have been able to go to FOS, and there have been relatively few consumer credit cases. However, this may change when consumers are able to take claims of unfair relationships to FOS under the new regime. While only a court may make an order under the new section 140B (the powers of the court in relation to unfair relationships) FOS has significant powers of redress. Particularly as it is not bound by legal precedent, as confirmed in the recent case of IFG Financial Services Limited v Financial Ombudsman Services Ltd [2005]. Here, the High Court held that the relevant law was only one of a number of factors which FOS is required to consider in reaching a decision and that FOS may legitimately ‘depart from the result mandated by the law if he considered that another result provided the result that was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.’
Furthermore, FOS’s decision is final. There is no right of appeal for the regulated entity, only the option of judicial review to challenge the decision-making process, rather than the decision itself.
Although FOS is a more informal body than the courts, in practice it wields enormous power. Financial services providers who refuse to comply with decisions against them face court enforcement action and face disciplinary proceedings by their regulator.

Retrospectivity
The Act will apply to:
credit agreements entered into after the Act becomes law
credit agreements in existence when the Act becomes law which are ongoing at the end of the transitional period (one year after the commencement date). However, for agreements in this category, the Court will be limited to granting relief in relation to:
*payments demanded or sums charged after the Act becomes law
*conduct on the part of the lender that makes any repayment of the debt, interest, fees or charges unreasonably high after the Act becomes law; or
*any other obligation on the borrower that is unfair under the new test and has to be complied with after the Act becomes law.

The Court may set aside credit agreements where there has been unfairness prior to the Act becoming law, but only if the unfairness manifests after the Act becomes law; and with effect from the date on which the Act becomes law. The financial exposure of lenders is limited by only permitting the Court to give relief in respect of unfairness or excessive costs that occurs after the Act becomes law.

Nevertheless, lenders who have advanced medium-long term loans should be reviewing all those which are likely to extend beyond the transitional period to double check they do not include terms which are likely to fall foul of the widened unfairness test.

The partial retrospectivity has triggered another debate, concerning its impact on the securitization market.
Many personal loans, mortgages and credit cards, entered into before lenders became aware of the new requirements, have been securitised under arrangements, which could not have contemplated that they would become subject to the new unfair relationship provisions.

In the House of Lords, it was argued that the UK securitisation market (which has has brought in some £235 million of new funds to UK lending markets) relies on the underlying loans having stable and consistent terms and conditions and a pre-determined risk profile. Case law which defines unfairness too broadly risks triggering a buy-back scramble under securitised deals. This could destabalise the credit market, increasing capital costs for lenders which would be passed on to borrowers as higher charges.

This has cut no ice with the Government. It has reponded that it would be unreasonable to exclude long term agreements – of up to 20 years plus – simply because they were concluded prior to the commencement date. On the securitisation issue it was opined that no funding arrangements should be based, even in part, on the inability of consumers effectively to seek redress for behaviour by lenders that cause them harm.

The burden of proof
This rests on the creditor. An amendment to place the burden of proof on the debtor if it is proven that the terms of the agreement were in plain, intelligible language was rejected on the grounds that the proposed new Section 140B(10) provides that the debtor must allege that an unfair relationship exists before the creditor must show that it is not.
The government felt that lenders are better placed to show that their conduct is not unfair and that consumers will find it difficult to access relevant information.
In practical terms, this obligation imposes a massive obligation on creditors to keep accurate records. What is more, records must be kept for a significant period, given the possibility of claims after the agreement has expired.

Unfairness and Irresponsible Lending
Throughout the legislative process there have been calls from consumer groups and politicians for irresponsible lending to be linked directly to unfairness, so lending irresponsibly would automatically render an agreement unfair. This was resisted, along with attempts to seek guidance generally, in the interests of retaining maximum flexibility.
However, on the third reading of the Bill before the House of Lords on 21 March 2006, an obligation to lend responsibly crept in under a slightly different guise. Rather than introducing a direct duty on lenders, an amendment was passed to ensure that the OFT can take into account include practices in the carrying on of a consumer credit business that appear to the OFT to involve irresponsible lending in determining fitness to hold a licence under the Act:
Lord Borrie spelt it out in debate thus; ‘Lending to those who are already overcommitted with debt is irresponsible. I trust that this new provision will incentivise lenders and potential lenders to take a good deal of care in checking out the borrower's means to repay and the extent to which repayment may be inhibited by the obligations that the borrower has to other lenders’.
Aside from issues of OFT accountability, in particular the concern that the OFT will define its own powers and then enforce them without consultation, this amendment is likely to impact on fairness. Overlap between the two concepts is anticipated. A finding that a lender has acted irresponsibly is likely to trigger allegations of unfairness and vice versa.

Summary
Lenders cannot afford to be complacent about the new regime. It is likely that more borrowers will be encouraged to try their hand at alleging unfairness, because it can be used as a sword as well as a shield; a borrower will not have to wait until they are facing enforcement proceedings to raise the issue. They don’t even have to be in arrears. Depending on the approach taken by FOS and the courts in the early days, lender could face a wave of speculative claims. As endowment providers have already discovered, in the absence of contemporaneous records to evidence exchanges with customers, it is more difficult to dispute the customer’s version of events. All dealings, including meetings, telephone calls and emails, need to be documented to enable the creditor to evidence what was said/done if a customer alleges unfairness.

In addition, it is possible that lenders will need to be able demonstrate that they took steps to ascertain that the borrower had the means to repay the loan, not only in terms of income but all outgoings, including other credit commitments, or risk having contracts overturned. Depending on how paternalistic the courts and FOS are prepared to be, we may be just a short time away from compulsory detailed factfinds and suitability certification for every loan.

looking4justice

do not know what is more shocking , the agreement or no comments on so many points of attack ,.. all thoughts are more then welcome ,..

never-in-doubt

I think your post is too long mate - even ive not had time to read it all, can you not shorten it into a handful of bullet-points for clarity and ease of reading?

Just add a new revised post (leave the original stuff there) but a condensed version lol

looking4justice

Hi there again , point taken ,.. well if account is put into arrears from day one , and was subject to high compenstation (interest per month £220 rising to £450 ) due to mistake placing an interest charge before 1st payment due ,.. would this be enough to make agreement unenforceable ,.. then the fact interest change ,higher payments then agreed to in contract , no option to rightfully cancel due to not been able to afford new monthly payment , payments stayed the same , each month the extra was added as arrears ,.. is this legal and enforceable??????

Poosmate

I think you need to take a breath!! Your posts are sooo confusing!

Have you got a loan to buy a house or is it a mortgage? Or is it a loan secured on your house?

Regarding your first figures for payments/interest your post doesn't make sense:-

Interest added before 1st payment:


£30,000+£220=£30,220-£260=£29,960 end of first month.
£29,960+£221=£30,181-£260=£29,921 end of second month.

Interest added after first payment:

£30,000-£260=£29,740+£220=£29,960 end of first month.
£29,960-£260=£29,700+£221=£29,921 end of second month.

Your original loan is still decreasing if only slightly at first.

Is your loan/mortgage on a fix rate interest or variable rate? If variable then yes they can put the interest rate up and your payments should have been increased in line with this. If fixed rate, then you should have been paying at least £39-£40 off your loan/mortgage every month within the first few months and this would increase as the loan/mortgage progressed as the interest charged would be decreasing.

Also:

".. I had a suspended repossession order , I offered to pay double payments to catch up on arrears ,.. the missed payments"

They don't stop charging you interest because you stop making payments plus they will probably put other charges onto the debt and possibly raise the interest rate to their "standard variable rate" especially if you were on a lower rate than their "SVR" before you defaulted!


"I thought the best way to catch up ,... £260 for normal monthly payment , and £260 to reduce the arrears ,..

.. the monthly interest charge was now £335 per month ,.. and this would be applied the week after payment ,.. (double payment) ,.. the extra £260 arrears payment was eaten up by the interest charge"

If you are making double payments that's £520 per month the interest is £335 per month so you are actually paying £185 per month off your loan/mortgage, which could possibly be more than you started with because you defaulted by missing payments!

I really don't know what to make of this thread. So confusing and incoherant!

Anyone else got any clues?

Poo

never-in-doubt

looking4justice wrote: »

Hi there again , point taken ,.. well if account is put into arrears from day one , and was subject to high compenstation (interest per month £220 rising to £450 ) due to mistake placing an interest charge before 1st payment due ,.. would this be enough to make agreement unenforceable ,.. then the fact interest change ,higher payments then agreed to in contract , no option to rightfully cancel due to not been able to afford new monthly payment , payments stayed the same , each month the extra was added as arrears ,.. is this legal and enforceable??????

From what you state in this post, no the debt is not unenforceable - for it to be unenforceable you'd first need to CCA Request the lender (pre 04/2007 only) and see what they send back.

However it appears you have an underlying issue and unless you really try and make a smaller condensed version, people will struggle to read all that you've typed.

looking4justice

well after giving it some thought ,.. will keep it simple and end the agreement ,.. I would still walk away with a few grand ,.. it will be ended due to lenders breach of contract by placing my account into arrears from day one ,.. which equals a monthly interest charge that has raised the balance ,.. so balance now £44,000 ,... £25,000 are arrears charges ,... charges from they mistake so not enforceable by law , I hope that the balance is reduced minus the charges ,
I believe I would be entitled to prepayments over the period of the loan refunded + interest ,.. that would clear balance owed and leave us just under £2,000 , and then the claim on PPI £2300 + interest ,..
I believe this is the best way forward for my circumstances ,.. I have the right to cancel due to breach ,.. and if charges that are placed are the result of they breach , charges will be refunded ,.. seems a easy route , then arguing about commissions , non compliance , ppi mis~sold , not contact us to inform us of interest rise ,.. unfair conditions seems to cover me spot on ,.. why fight and risk only getting a small % refunded ,.. I will use the situation to my advantage as seems pretty straight forward case ,.. if it gets the same results and agreement is dissolved and can not be enforced I will be very happy ,... hopefully get some thoughts now it is put plain and simple lol , thanks for bearing with me on this , can go round the world sometimes to try and express a point

Remedies
If the court finds that the relationship between borrower and lender is unfair, it has a wide range of remedies including;
*requiring the creditor to repay any sum paid by the debtor
*ordering the creditor to act or cease to act in a particular way in connection with the agreement
*reducing the amount payable under the agreement
*directing the return of any security under the agreement
*altering any of the terms of the agreement.

Poosmate

I'm sorry Looking4justice but it's still not simple or understandable.

Who has told you that the debt is unenforceable? Who has advised you that the lender is in breach of contract?

Have you got all of the paperwork and taken it to the CAB for advice?

Have you formed your beliefs from what you have read in all of the information you have cut and pasted in reply #2?*

*If so you seriously need to get some proper financial advice - maybe a free half hour consultation with a solicitor or something!

If you are looking for help and guidance on here then you need to be more specific about the problem and give facts - not what you "think".

For example:

I took out a loan for £30k over 25 years at a fixed rate of 8% (for example) interest and the payments were £260 per month. I made ?? (however many payments you made) payments then stopped paying for ?? (however many months).

End of example.

You must have had some communication with the lendor when you stopped payments. How long did you stop paying for and why?

You say £25k of the now £44k debt is charges and interest, have you got a breakdown of the charges and interest? They are allowed to add interest and charges to the debt as you were in breach of contract in stopping the payments. What were they supposed to do? Send you an invoice for each amount of interest and each charge whilst you weren't paying back the debt?

Please just supply the facts otherwise please go get some professional advice and I would go see someone rather than write to them.

Hope that helps.

Poo

never-in-doubt

looking4justice wrote: »

hopefully get some thoughts now it is put plain and simple lol , thanks for bearing with me on this , can go round the world sometimes to try and express a point

Mate it's just as hard to grasp! As poo stated, you're mixing your feelings/thoughts/presumptions into the equasion which is a no-go. We need a simple breakdown of facts! Not what they may or may not have done wrong, but what exactly have then done - period.

So just tell us the facts about what is wrong and the amounts involved - no feelings, thoughts, opinions, quoting of acts/laws etc - just stick to the bare facts

Make sense? :think:

looking4justice

right here goes again ,... lenders placed a interest charge before 1st payment was due,.. put account into arrears ,... for 7 years every month a interest charge (even when paying monthly amounts) ,.. as interest due if I was in breach as poo says ,.. but I was not in breach at the start the agreement ,.. so how does a mistake at the beginning give them the right to charge interest for 7 years each month???????? regardless if payment was make ,.. i have had agreement for 84 months , 84 interest charges ,.. interest now double my contractually payment ,... yeah sounds right to me ,.. I do not see how you folks do not grasp what i am saying ,..

Void - a void contract is one that cannot be performed or completed at all. A void contract is void from the beginning (ab initio - see the Latin terms below) and the normal remedy, if possible, is to put things back to where they were before the contract. Contracts are void where one party lacks the capacity to perform the contracted task, it is based on a mistake, or it is illegal.