Consumer Credit Support  
Bailiff Advice Online

Go Back   Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Act
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-04-2009, 04:27 PM
peterbard's Avatar
peterbard peterbard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 312
peterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to all
Default Why the argument on section 18 does not effect credit cards and ppi

Hi
I have just posted this on the section 18 thread (otr)no takers yet so, i thought i would let you lot get a dig in

Couldnt this refer to a ppi policy on a credit card agreement?


12(c) an unrestricted -use credit agreement which is made by the creditor under

pre-existing arrangements between himself and a person (the “supplier”)
other than the debtor in the knowledge that the credit is to be used to
finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier.


If it does it makes it unrestricted d-c-s the same as the primary accouunt not a seperate agrement at all .

Well i think section 12 does indeed apply to ppi, and i think that ppi is in fact unrestricted in credit cards and i think that all the casses that have gone to court on a section 18 argument are where the principle was restriced, and in the case of a credit card the principle is unrestricted so any transaction that does not invovle the forwarding of the orriginal loan would also be, if it was not it wouldn't be in the total credit at all but in the total charge for credit.

What do ya think

Go on let me have it

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-11-2009, 01:26 PM
maybelline maybelline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 254
maybelline is on a distinguished road
Default

the recent judgement in the Heath case is disappointing, do we have a thread anywhere with some positives (apart from above of course!)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Dragonlady's Avatar
Dragonlady Dragonlady is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Proud member of the CFC.
Posts: 10,998
Dragonlady has disabled reputation
Default

No there isn't a thread anywhere regarding the Heath Appeal and judgement
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-11-2009, 08:45 PM
The Terminator's Avatar
The Terminator The Terminator is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Getting in a DCA's face
Posts: 1,940
The Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to allThe Terminator is a name known to all
Default

Is this the case your refering too

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1135.html

Term
__________________
The real evil is not the payment of money, but the secrecy attending it (Chitty L.J. in the case of Shipway v Broadwood [1899] 1 QB 369, 373). .

The courts shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner

Moneylending transactions as a class give rise to significant social problems.

Astalavista baby and I'll be back
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-11-2009, 10:16 PM
BOUDICCA BOUDICCA is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,144
BOUDICCA will become famous soon enoughBOUDICCA will become famous soon enough
Default

Yes it is Term.

Peter, I cannot find your post OTR?
Is it on the Multiple Agreements thread?

BOUDICCA
X
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-11-2009, 02:37 PM
BOUDICCA BOUDICCA is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,144
BOUDICCA will become famous soon enoughBOUDICCA will become famous soon enough
Default

Southern Pacific Personal Loans V Walker:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1176.html

Appeal Allowed!?

http://money.aol.co.uk/couple-lose-4...p=Money%20News

BOUDICCA

Last edited by BOUDICCA : 12-11-2009 at 04:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17-11-2009, 05:41 PM
BOUDICCA BOUDICCA is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,144
BOUDICCA will become famous soon enoughBOUDICCA will become famous soon enough
Default

Hot off the Tom-Toms:

The Walker judgement is being appealed!

I should think so too...

BOUDICCA
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 19-11-2009, 07:47 AM
Dragonlady's Avatar
Dragonlady Dragonlady is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Proud member of the CFC.
Posts: 10,998
Dragonlady has disabled reputation
Default

Have read a copy of the appeal application. let's see what the outcomne is
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-01-2010, 03:23 PM
peterbard's Avatar
peterbard peterbard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 312
peterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to allpeterbard is a name known to all
Default

Hi
Still nothing basically i think that the heath judgement was flawd section 18 is there to protect debtors from taking out dredit agreements and banks hiding the fact that they should be regulated.
It is not however there to make currently regulated agreements unenforceable because perts of them fall into different catergories.
It is just iMO is another case of someone with a vested interest looking at a judgment and seeing if he can make it fit a circumstanse that it was never designed to do. The so called loop hole. This some times does work but courts do not like it and if it is to be effective the logic behind it has to be water tight this isnt.
Ssying that the PPI on a regulated credit card agreement has to have its own set of Tand xs becauseitis it falls into a different cattergory than some of the other transactions is to the say stretching the meaning of section 18 expectiong a court to make the whole agrreement unenforceable because of it is to my mind a bit barmy.

Best regard
Peter
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-01-2010, 04:20 PM
Dragonlady's Avatar
Dragonlady Dragonlady is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Proud member of the CFC.
Posts: 10,998
Dragonlady has disabled reputation
Default

Ssying that the PPI on a regulated credit card agreement has to have its own set of Tand xs becauseitis it falls into a different cattergory than some of the other transactions is to the say stretching the meaning of section 18 expectiong a court to make the whole agrreement unenforceable because of it is to my mind a bit barmy.

.................................................. .......................

I agree with you on this one Peter.
__________________
Please remember we will edit posts that contain derogatory remarks, to protect the Site and the poster from retaliatory action by the banks et al.

Proud member of CFC
The more I learn about terrorism, the more I understand Banks, Credit Card Companies and DCA's
Advice & opinions of Dragonlady and the Consumer Credit Support Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. I can only speak from MY experience and how I have handled my claims. If you have any doubts please seek the opinion of a qualified solicitor

My posts are not to be published anywhere else without my express permission

If we have helped you reclaim your charges please consider a 5% donation to the site. All donations, large or small will help us to continue to help others.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Consumer Credit Support