Unenforceable loan agreements

fanofmartin_2

Thanks Homer J, all this financial stuff makes my head spin!! I don't understand how we were told it was a 7 year loan became 240 payments!! Where do I find out if comission was declared, ad what is my next move?

I really appreciate everyone's help and sharing of experiences on this forum. It has become a lifeline. Give Martin a knighthood!

homer_j_3

What you were told and what you signed could be 2 different things. Unscrupulous sales tactics and reliance on people not checking what they sign make it all too easy for some people.

I would get your agreement and account audited for any flaws, errors or incosistencies and then look to get your account sorted with them in a manner to which I have discussed above.

fanofmartin_2

Thanks for your help, from looking at the agreement it does not state the total amount i'll be paying back only the total credit amount including the ppi which was just added on.

I have had two settlement figures one in july 04 where i would get a 2700 insurance rebate and one for this month where the insurance rebate is nil. I'm assuming i have paid for all of the insurance now so wouod be entitled to a full refund.

marshallka

DaisyFlower wrote: »

So you borrowed the money and now dont want to pay it back so are looking if any admin mistakes were made - thats not money savings, its just plain wrong.

When finance companies have broken rules knowing (especially the ppi additions) that you will not have a leg to stand on (and the rule of 78 being applied so you end up settling MORE than you actually borrowed) then this is time to look for anything that you can get back what is FAIR and RIGHT. People try to be fair with them but they just take the michael so are left with no choice than to nit pick. If they got it right in the first place then there would be no need for this. Its just some people are left with no alternative to get back money.

homer_j_3

I would disagree DaisyFlower, it is very much moneysaving as you are only exploiting the laws that the lenders would happily exploit if it meant they could carry on taking more money than was due to them.

I only hope that you do not become in a position where you are struggling to put food on the table because a lender has broken the law and has incorrectly taken money that would pay for that food.

I dont know whether you work in the finance industry but your comments do resemble my comments about 2 months ago until I saw the reality of what was happening and the impact these fraudulent activities were having on the lives of people who were always trying to do the supposed right thing.

DaisyFlower

homer_j wrote: »

I would disagree DaisyFlower, it is very much moneysaving as you are only exploiting the laws that the lenders would happily exploit if it meant they could carry on taking more money than was due to them.

I only hope that you do not become in a position where you are struggling to put food on the table because a lender has broken the law and has incorrectly taken money that would pay for that food.

I dont know whether you work in the finance industry but your comments do resemble my comments about 2 months ago until I saw the reality of what was happening and the impact these fraudulent activities were having on the lives of people who were always trying to do the supposed right thing.

I dont work in finance, I was just bought up to learn right from wrong. If you borrow money, you pay it back. You dont borrow it and then look for a flaw in the paperwork in the hope you dont have to give the lender their money back.

The OP never mentioned the company had taken more than was due - he was simply looking for a loophole to avoid paying.

Dont make the lenders out to be "taking food off the table" - if you borrow money then you know the consequences of paying it back.

marshallka

DaisyFlower wrote: »

I dont work in finance, I was just bought up to learn right from wrong. If you borrow money, you pay it back. You dont borrow it and then look for a flaw in the paperwork in the hope you dont have to give the lender their money back.



Dont make the lenders out to be "taking food off the table" - if you borrow money then you know the consequences of paying it back.

Perhaps you should read some of the horror stories of the people like myself that borrowed £17,000 repaid £280 per month (never defaulted) for over 3 years and then had to pay £21400 back because of some rule being the rule of 78 (now abolished because its seen as extortinate credit and unfair terms) and some ppi that was sold as a condition of the loan that we did not realise (as they failed to disclose) was an upfront payment. I think anyone would nit pick to get back what is fair after trying to get a fair settlement back.

I was bought up to know right from wrong and THEY are wrong. Unless you worked in finance (and even when you did) you would not have a clue how this stupid rule was worked but what we do know is we do not mind borrowing, paying some off and then paying a fair settlement back but not to be abused by the people that WERE supposed to be looking after your interests.

When people have tried legally to get their money back (a fair settlement and ppi that was missold) and that has not worked because of certain dates and reliance of being told, we sold it to you in your best interests, knowing that they had not even been given a choice, what else can we do.

I would do this without a doubt if my complaint with the FOS is not upheld as i know it was not FAIR and they had a chance to look at things again and be fair but CHOSE to dismiss it.

Daisyflower, it seems to me that you are only looking at the side of the law in favour of the lenders. We as consumers may not have the money that these lenders have (because most of us have spent our lives abiding by law and repaying unscrupulous lenders extortionate credit back) but we should be protected just the same.

BRING IT ON - GET THESE LOANS UNENFORCEABLE IF ITS A LAST RESORT

angelwillow

Are lenders supposed to state the apr on your original agreement that you sign?

homer_j_3

DaisyFlower wrote: »

I dont work in finance, I was just bought up to learn right from wrong. If you borrow money, you pay it back. You dont borrow it and then look for a flaw in the paperwork in the hope you dont have to give the lender their money back.

The OP never mentioned the company had taken more than was due - he was simply looking for a loophole to avoid paying.

Dont make the lenders out to be "taking food off the table" - if you borrow money then you know the consequences of paying it back.

I too was brought up to know right from wrong and I too believe that you should repay your debts in line with the agreed terms.

It is a shame that the lenders do not know right from wrong. These laws were designed and implemented to protect the consumer and bring some regulation into the industry which would try and kerb illegal lending practices.

So, when I come on here and say that a contract may be voidable or unenforceable, if you have actually read anything that I have written on the matter, you will have understood that the reasons that they have a case is because the lender has broken the law. It is not anybody exploiting loopholes and I am sorry that you see it that way.

Also if you read my post on voidable loans, you actually have to pay the money back that you borrowed, it is just that the lender cannot charge any interest on the debt as a punishment for committing a form of bribery.

So when I say, because of illegal lending practices it could make the difference of putting food on the table or not, then I stand by this comment.

This is a public forum and I respect that your feelings are as they are because upto recently, I felt very similarly. It was only when I realised that lenders are not the clean innocent institutions of the land that we are all led to believe that I had a big change of heart on this subject.

homer_j_3

angelwillow wrote: »

Are lenders supposed to state the apr on your original agreement that you sign?

Yes it should, I believe. APR's were designed to allow the consumer to help make a considered comparison of how competitive the loan was. Without an APR, you cannot do that.

Some may find this missing bit of information as an oversight and some may see it a way of stopping the consumer seeing the true cost of the loan and therefore possibly being mislead into thinking their deal was better because the transparent costs make it look so.