SXGuy's UE Diary

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I have not looked at the templates, from looking around the forum it seems that you are in good hands.

Was this a credit card?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yeah, MBNA credit card, you can read through my diary to follow the story, its quite long tbh.

Dont get me wrong, i know im in good hands, always sound advice from the guys n gals here. Im not worried at all, as i know any litigation will be thrown out due to the PT's not being correct.

Im just puzzled at their statement that makes no sense to me.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Earlier didn't you say they mentioned fixed term agreement, perhaps they have their wires crossed ?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Earlier didn't you say they mentioned fixed term agreement, perhaps they have their wires crossed ?

No, they just stated its "not" a fixed term agreement, so the prescribed terms does not have to be shown on the same page.

Which is true, its not a loan, so it wouldnt be a fixed term agreement.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Perhaps they are talking about schedule 1 of the above regulations.

Section 10 would be the interest if that were the case, which I am pretty sure is a prescribed term on a credit card.

[vint1954]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

They do talk twaddle. Send that letter to Niddy,

Prescribed terms came into effect in 1985

[vint1954]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The 2006 amendments came into force April 2007. It made UE more dificult for agreements signed after April 2007, but they still have to comply with s78-79.

The amendments are not retrospective

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Yes however they try and wrap it up the PTs have to be there

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The 2006 amendments came into force April 2007. It made UE more dificult for agreements signed after April 2007, but they still have to comply with s78-79.

The amendments are not retrospective

LOL i know, which is why there paragraph confuses the hell out of me, the agreement is pre 2007, im not trying to use any argument for post CCA2006, its as though they are trying to argue that UE under 2006 does not apply to CCA1974, which is correct, however, they also know, that the agreement does fall under CCA1974 and UE does apply.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

No, they just stated its "not" a fixed term agreement, so the prescribed terms does not have to be shown on the same page.

Which is true, its not a loan, so it wouldnt be a fixed term agreement.

I cant find anything that says that the prescribed terms must be on the same face of the agreement for a fixed sum loan,(although they usually are) just within the same document as per credit cards. Am I looking in the wrong place ?

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

Thats not really something id know about tbh, someone else may know.

I just meant, that its not a fixed term agreement, as its not a loan.

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The only difference that i can see between a fixed sum loan and a credit card as far as the prescribed terms is concerned is that the interest is not required on a fixed sum loan before May 2005.
I wondered if this is what they were getting at.

I thought perhaps they were mistakenly thinking you loan was one of these

[The Tech Clerk]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

I cant find anything that says that the prescribed terms must be on the same face of the agreement for a fixed sum loan,(although they usually are) just within the same document as per credit cards. Am I looking in the wrong place ?

You probably mean within the 4 corners, as has been mentioned in the past??

[gravytrain]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

You probably mean within the 4 corners, as has been mentioned in the past??

I think that this is a figurative reference rather than literal,and refers to the four corners of the agreement document, a document can consist of several pages and applies equally to all types of loans

I don't really know what they are on about in the letter to be honest, I am sure it is nothing to worry about, an interesting subject though

[SXGuy]

Re: SXGuy's UE Diary

The only 4 corners reference i know of is

Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated
“In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement.

However, i think im right in saying you cant take it litterally.


EDIT: Think ive gotten somewhere with this, but Niddy has got Paul on the case to clarify.

I personally think DLC have gotten confused with what applies to an agreement pre April 2007, and what applies after.

The section of the 1974 Act giving the court no power to consider enforceability was amended by the 2006 Act with effect from 6 April.
Since 6 April, an agreement omitting the prescribed terms would not automatically be unenforceable.

So from what i can tell, DLC seem to have gotten it the wrong way round.