Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Write to us at PO Box 82112 London N17 1LG Registered Office Unit 1.01, Hollinwood Business Centre, Albert Street, Failsworth, Oldham, England, OL8 3QL
    • Is this the correct email to send WS to the courts? I was sure there was a thread here with updated emails. [email protected] Thanks again Andy
    • Thanks again Andy. I have used the following. Not 100% sure on it as it's a bit technical for me. But hopefully shines a light on the points I want to enforce of the 'Full and final' settlement.   Exhibit 2: (relevant extracts used).   URL:https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/8.html Cite as: [2001] 1 All ER 961, [2001] ICR 337, [2001] 2 WLR 735, [2002] AC 251, [2002] 1 AC 251, [2001] Emp LR 359, [2001] IRLR 292, [2001] UKHL 8   Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v. Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan and Others [2001] UKHL 8; [2001] 1 All ER 961; [2001] 2 WLR 735 (1st March, 2001) HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SA (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) (APPELLANTS) v. (1) MUNAWAR ALI (2) SULTANA RUNI KHAN AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) ON 1 MARCH 2001 [2001] UKHL 8   LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD 22. This appeal raises a question of interpretation of a general release. By a general release I mean an agreement containing widely drawn general words releasing all claims one party may have against the other. The release given by Mr Naeem was of this character. Mr Naeem accepted a payment from BCCI 'in full and final settlement of all or any claims . . . of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist'. LORD HOFFMANN 38. The language of the document is very wide. The impression it conveys is that the draftsman meant business. He has gone to some trouble to avoid leaving anything out. He uses traditional style: pairs of words like "full and final settlement", "all or any claims", "that exist or may exist" and phrases like "whether under statute, common law or in equity" and "of whatsoever nature". Admittedly, he could have gone further. Tudor Grange Holdings Ltd v Citibank NA [1992] Ch 53, 57 contains an even more elaborate release and I have seen American documents in which the release covers an entire page. But most people in this country would regard this as overkill. The modern English tradition, while still erring on the side of caution, is to avoid the grosser excesses of verbiage and trust to the judges to use common sense to get the message. I think that this tendency should be encouraged. So I think that anyone who was simply reading the document without preconceptions would accept that the draftsman was not leaving deliberate gaps. It does not however follow that the language was to be read completely literally. There may be limitations in scope to be inferred from the background, limitations from context which the draftsman may have thought too obvious to mention. But that is a different matter from saying that he did not use enough words. LORD CLYDE The critical words are: "The applicant agrees to accept the terms set out in the documents attached in full and final settlement of all or any claims whether under statute, common law or in equity of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist and, in particular, all or any claims rights or applications of whatsoever nature that the applicant has or may have or has made or could make in or to the industrial tribunal, except the applicant's rights under the respondent's pension scheme."
    • change 4 options to  a. Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on. b. Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment. c. Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and quantify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. d. Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   add in: add a new point 2. (old one now being 3)  2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

Hi, After some advice im just in the process of changing mortgages and getting rid of a secured loan to Future Mortgages or at least that was the plan until i got the redemption figure from Future Mortgages.

 

I took out a £20,000 Secure Loan in 2000 and have been told today that a settlement figure is £28482.08 , Im in shock can this be correct ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, After some advice im just in the process of changing mortgages and getting rid of a secured loan to Future Mortgages or at least that was the plan until i got the redemption figure from Future Mortgages.

 

I took out a £20,000 Secure Loan in 2000 and have been told today that a settlement figure is £28482.08 , Im in shock can this be correct ?

 

 

You probably need to either ask for full statement since inception or send SAR asap to establish why your debt has increased.

 

Have you ever had any arrears or charges?

 

Have you been sent statements on a yearly basis?

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, After some advice im just in the process of changing mortgages and getting rid of a secured loan to Future Mortgages or at least that was the plan until i got the redemption figure from Future Mortgages.

 

I took out a £20,000 Secure Loan in 2000 and have been told today that a settlement figure is £28482.08 , Im in shock can this be correct ?

 

davo19

 

I had 3 secured loans with this outfit, the largest being £26k started in 2002 and redeemed in 2003. They didn't use the R78 calculation but instead charged me 6 months interest as a redemption figure which they have just recently admitted was incorrect and paid me back £2k:D

 

So in summary I borrowed 26k, 5 months later I redeemed for 27k under the rule of 78 plus sealing fee and redemption fee. I was never in arrears.

 

Have they just given you a settlement figure or a redemption statement? You need to find out how this £28k is calculated! Are you in arrears? have you been charged for being in arrears or not paying by DD?

 

The R78 calculation starts to get a bit more complicated (if this is possible!!) when you are in arrears!

 

BobbyH

 

P.S. Rule of 78 is used for the following loans:

 

Where you are given a single amount of credit or where you are given credit to make one purchase on a particular occasion taken out before 31 May 2005 and repaid by a single payment before:

 

-31 May 2007, for loans up to 10 years; or

-31 May 2010, for loans of 10 years or longer

 

Hopefully your situation falls in to the 2nd bullet point!!

 

I can assist with this calculation if you can give me the following info:

 

Loan Start Date

Loan Amount (including insurances)

Term of loan

Monthly payment you make

How many installments you have actually paid

How many months in arrears you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I need to search the loft for the original agreement from kensington.

 

I know the loan was for 20 k in May 2002 , term 25 years and the interest is variable, i have been paying between £250 and £312 per month.

 

Heres what i have been given via fax, a more detailed statement is being sent to me

 

The settlement has been calculated in accordance with the regulation 3 of the Consumer Credit (settlement information) Regulations 1983

 

Balance of interest and principal oustanding on the account £64,054.41

Additional chanrges £147

Total payable before rebate £64,201.41

Interest refund £35,719.33

Settlement Figure £28,482.08

 

What frustrates me the most is for loans over 10 years , the new rules ie settlement + 2 months interest comes into action in 2010 which would make my settlement figure much more reasonable.

 

 

Other threads have shown people challenging this Rule Of 78 under the UTCC

 

This charge represents an unfair penalty charge in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083) (the ‘UTCC’).

 

This charge represents an unfair penalty charge in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083) (the ‘UTCC’).

 

As im currently remortaging to get rid of this loan im after some advice if i should delay completing and challenge Future Mortages via the FOS, Trading Standards or via a Court.

 

currently with the current settlement theres a £2500 shortfall in my remortage.

 

What i dont want to do is challenge Future if its pointless and it cost me a fortune in legal fees and i end up in a worse situation than im in now.

 

Appreciate any advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a very rough calculation and their figures are coming out about right give or take a few quid.

 

In order to calculate accurately I would need the actual amount you have paid back already, how many instalments you have made and whether there are any arrears.

 

Based on there being no arrears, 79 instalments paid (June02-Dec08) and the instalment amount of £281 (average of £250 and £312, £20000 loan over 300 months (25 years), the interest rebate would be £34,300 and the settlement figure would be £27,600 (including the £147 add. charge).

 

I challenged Future when they applied a 6 month penalty for redemption because they they should have used (if anything at all) the Rule of 78. None of my loan agreements stipulated that I would be charged any redemption charge but calculated that using the R78 I would be better off!

 

Even if you can challenge FM about their calculation, by doing this you might be able to proove that their calculation is wrong and by doing so find that extra £2500 shortfall!!

 

It all does depend on the remaining info. for an accurate calc. as mentioned above.

 

BobbyH

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Thought i should update you on my fun and games with Future Mortgages, I asked my Solicitor to use a few choice words ie i would take them to the european court of appeal and financial ombudsman, to my suprise after a few weeks i was advised that i had to give them £6000 less, a good result in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...