Uneneforceable & Voidable loans

emmab26_2

Hi could someone point me in the right direction of which company to use for these claims, as I may have a few one with Ge Money who we currently have our mortgage with, we also had a mortgage with these before the current one which we remortgaged as we moved. I would also like to get my agreements checked for loans we had with Welcome Finance and Future mortgages both of which are paid off and I have started claims for PPi on both but haven't got anywhere really so now would like to get a company to check if these agreements were actually correct.
I have read about the secret commissions and we have a letter from Future Mortgages that we got after complaining about PPI not the commissions that actually states a commission was paid to the broker of £1350, but that it was the broker who was responsible for advising that this commission would be paid to them, as we were never made aware of it, its on none of the agreements etc and they suggest that we contacted the broker with regards to this and then go on to give us the address of the broker, is this correct??

Thanks in advance

Incipience

pinknico wrote: »

Sorry I mean loans which have PPI ,
PPI should be a seperate agreement shouldn't it ,with seperate monthly figure and interest and seperate signature ?
Different credit I mean , the credit that HAS to go towards the PPI and the credit that goes to the borrower to do with what they like.

Pinknico.. this is somewhat of a debatable area, as for all intents and purposes the PPI part of the loan is a Fixed Sum, Fixed Purpose loan, and may form part of a multiple agreement even when it is listed as part of one, the reason being as the PPI and the Loan have a seperate meaning. It could therefore be argued, however I am not aware of any precedence, but have been in discussions about this.

This is an area that requires more investigation, as it could mean that a multiple agreement exists and therefore the PPI may well be regulated under the CCA 1974 and CCA 2006.

I wont argue the point with Peter, as I will bow to his experience... HOWEVER. :rolleyes:

The Facts are as so, the loan part is fixed sum unrestricted, the PPI part is Fixed Sum Restricted, and therefore by definition have 2 meanings.

I conclude that the PPI part could be called a regulated agreement that was improperly executed.

Open to debate!

Incipience

emmab26 wrote: »

Hi could someone point me in the right direction of which company to use for these claims, as I may have a few one with Ge Money who we currently have our mortgage with, we also had a mortgage with these before the current one which we remortgaged as we moved. I would also like to get my agreements checked for loans we had with Welcome Finance and Future mortgages both of which are paid off and I have started claims for PPi on both but haven't got anywhere really so now would like to get a company to check if these agreements were actually correct.
I have read about the secret commissions and we have a letter from Future Mortgages that we got after complaining about PPI not the commissions that actually states a commission was paid to the broker of £1350, but that it was the broker who was responsible for advising that this commission would be paid to them, as we were never made aware of it, its on none of the agreements etc and they suggest that we contacted the broker with regards to this and then go on to give us the address of the broker, is this correct??

Thanks in advance

Wilson & Another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299
"Significantly, the lender, who had paid the commission knowing that the broker was acting as the agent of the borrowers, was found liable as an accessory to that breach. This meant that the borrowers were entitled to claim equitable compensation directly against Hurstanger."

In other words you can pursue the lender for being party to the brokers breach of the common law principles of agency: fiduciary duty

miamiink

~Brock~ wrote: »

I take it that they are soon to be your 'ex' employer?

As I said, circumstances have changed so yes they will be.

Are staff loans covered by the Consumer Credit Act and if not who are they covered by or are they unregulated.

petermb_2

Incipience wrote: »

Pinknico.. this is somewhat of a debatable area, as for all intents and purposes the PPI part of the loan is a Fixed Sum, Fixed Purpose loan, and may form part of a multiple agreement even when it is listed as part of one, the reason being as the PPI and the Loan have a seperate meaning. It could therefore be argued, however I am not aware of any precedence, but have been in discussions about this.

This is an area that requires more investigation, as it could mean that a multiple agreement exists and therefore the PPI may well be regulated under the CCA 1974 and CCA 2006.

I wont argue the point with Peter, as I will bow to his experience... HOWEVER. :rolleyes:

The Facts are as so, the loan part is fixed sum unrestricted, the PPI part is Fixed Sum Restricted, and therefore by definition have 2 meanings.

I conclude that the PPI part could be called a regulated agreement that was improperly executed.

Open to debate!

This is still to be tested so there can be a few theories at this stage but it is down to how the lenders react over the next few months. Your point will be raised, of course.

petermb_2

miamiink wrote: »

As I said, circumstances have changed so yes they will be.

Are staff loans covered by the Consumer Credit Act and if not who are they covered by or are they unregulated.

I have discussed this very issue with my specialist lawyer, who happens to have worked for the lenders in another life and he feels that if the bank lends money as a business then a staff loan should also be regulated. After all a staff loan is only such to give advantageous rates while you work for that insitution. Once you leave employment you should still be subject to the protection of the CCA just like anyone else, especially if the favourable rate is removed.

lclclclc

can anyone recommend a good solicitor whom specialises in consumer law - CPR 31.16 already issued to company concerned, would prefer my next communication to be sent by a solicitor..

Incipience

LC.. did you have a court issue under the disclosure, or are you referring to a notice before action that you drafted and sent?

lclclclc

its a notice before action, related to a personal loan issue.

mungos_mum

Hi

Thought that I'd quickly post an update on our fight with Lloyds.
Having referered our complaint to Financial ombudsman services several months ago, last Friday I had a call to say that we had been allocated a case worker, I then had a call from our case worker today to say that as the complaint is so complicated it has had to be passed over to a specialist team for investigation and it could take some time before we hear anything. I did explain that Lloyds have written to us to say that there are no signed agreements and the case workers 'off the record reply' was that he did not see how Lloyds could persue payment without any signed agreements. I also explained that Lloyds are now sending threatening letters to recover the money, again it was explained to me that these would continue and that it would probably get worse before it gets better but that we just had to 'hang on in there' until Omudsman report their findings.
If Lloyds can get away with treating successful celebrity chefs in the way they have, I do wonder what chance we have in our fight with them!
I will update when I have more news

Mungos mum