Calling iwoca borrowers: Need evidence of misconduct

[perfumebrands]

The Op doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of evidence - Kind of like Donald Trump, except that DT is deliberately avoiding and deflecting evidence. There is a real risk that a judge will suspect they are doing the same.

@perfumebrands - here are 3 things that DON'T constitute evidence:

• AI. It will give you an uncomfortable mix of fact/fiction relevance/irrelevance. Your job as user is to translate that into concise, factual, relevant narrative. But it's still narrative, not evidence.
• People agreeing with you. Unless they can provide evidence, it's just noise.
• Wild assumptions. Particularly the assumption that your non-regulated agreement falls under the Consumer Credit Act. I have no words for that.

Evidence includes:

Timelines
Contracts
Communications (ideally written)
Potentially anything else that can be fully verified.

Noted. Good tips. Thanks!

 

[Nathanto]

I'll continue posting updates every now and then.

Can you post a link to the 'Court of Appeal in Beckingham v Buildfinance' case as requested by The Resolver?

Is there a reason that you don't want to share a redacted copy of the finance agreement given that your whole case revolves around 'non-transparent costs' and 'lack of prominence' of the actual interest rate? You don't even need to redact it really since your limited company details are publicly availably anyway.

 

[jimbof]

• Misrepresented Interest Rates: Being quoted a monthly rate (e.g., 5.15%) that resulted in an undisclosed and significantly higher annual APR (80%+).

Can you show please some example of the terms being represented so we can at least sympathise a bit!? I went on their website and their first example in their online calc was pretty clear in black and white that this was going to be expensive. While not quite the rates you mention, it's the same ballpark... And results in paying back over double the original capital.
"
48 monthly repayments of £2,227
Total repayment of £106,903
Including fee of £3,000
3.33% interest per 30 days (49% APR representative)
£50,000 over 48 months
They say that >50% will get this rate or less, which clearly means nearly 50% will get WORSE rates.

3. Fear of Disclosure
Why the last-minute games? Because a trial on 5 March means Full Disclosure. Iwoca would be forced to open their books, show their internal risk assessments, and justify rates that are vastly out of step with competitive UK market standards.

Why would they actually have to open their books and justify their rates? This isn't some massive Statutory Enquiry etc you are involved in here with far reaching powers to compel testimony and request irrelevant data. Your Ltd company either agreed or didn't to the rates and fees proposed, they don't have to justify anything. What was written in your signed agreements? What was the application process showing>

What's "competitive"? I just saw a rate of 120% interest fixed / 442%(!) APR being advertised to the public for "logbook loans". What is a fair cost for loans being given in a fairly high-risk sector? I'm being deliberately cheeky here, but if all their customers were like you their rates would need to be much higher...!

Actually, you’re operating on outdated assumptions. Under the Consumer Credit Act, the 'Unfair Relationships test (Section 140A) applies to any credit agreement involving an "individual" regardless of the business purpose or the existence of a PG.

Surely this is all likely to hinge on the exact content of the agreement and PG, and given they have big lawyers, it's probably watertight? You're trying to bring the loan agreement under scope of the CCA, but I'll be surprised it that's possible. . Maybe the PG could be if very poorly drafted, but I doubt that has happened.

A quick look around would indicate that if the PG / loan is worded correctly, and includes statements signed relating to the business purpose of the loan, that it will place the PG and the loan agreement pretty firmly outside of the CCA.

There could be other routes to go down with the validity or not of the PG (eg procedural errors in the signing etc), but it seems you're on a hiding to nothing trying to bring in the CCA if you personally signed a PG that does include such statements firmly placing the agreements outside CCA.

I'll be very surprised if outside of there being some kind of specific procedural snafu on their part relating to the implementation of the PG or its contents you get anywhere with this, and it sounds like your claim isn't looking at that at all.

Statements will show the movement of the entire borrowed principal from the business bank account Iwoca paid to, to my personal bank account (Clarifying that I am, as the individual guarantor, the 100% beneficiary of it), and will show that all payments I made back to settle the original principal + the missunderstood APR at that time, were made from "Yours Truly" bank account, not the business.

All this is regardless of what it transpired you actually did with the loan monies (which you cite like it's somehow relevant what you did with it). It's out of their control what your company actually does with the money. They payed it to the company, NOT to you personally, your company chose where to spend it. Are you arguing they should somehow exert control over what you can spend it on, and not doing so makes it their issue somehow, or cements that it was in fact somehow a personal loan under CCA?? Did you or did you not sign paperwork that said the loan was going to be used for business purposes, or not? To be honest this is all sounds highly non-sequitur, and if the rest of the arguments you are making are along similar lines, I fear you're frankly going to get laughed at.

 

[fisicx]

This is the whole problem, @perfumebrands doesn’t understands how loans work, what APR means or how repayments are calculated. They also appeared to have signed a PG without taking the advised financial advise.

There wasn’t anything undisclosed. It was all clearly stated in the loan agreement.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Can you show please some example of the terms being represented so we can at least sympathise a bit!? I went on their website and their first example in their online calc was pretty clear in black and white that this was going to be expensive. While not quite the rates you mention, it's the same ballpark... And results in paying back over double the original capital.
"
48 monthly repayments of £2,227
Total repayment of £106,903
Including fee of £3,000
3.33% interest per 30 days (49% APR representative)
£50,000 over 48 months
They say that >50% will get this rate or less, which clearly means nearly 50% will get WORSE rates.


Why would they actually have to open their books and justify their rates? This isn't some massive Statutory Enquiry etc you are involved in here with far reaching powers to compel testimony and request irrelevant data. Your Ltd company either agreed or didn't to the rates and fees proposed, they don't have to justify anything. What was written in your signed agreements? What was the application process showing>

What's "competitive"? I just saw a rate of 120% interest fixed / 442%(!) APR being advertised to the public for "logbook loans". What is a fair cost for loans being given in a fairly high-risk sector? I'm being deliberately cheeky here, but if all their customers were like you their rates would need to be much higher...!

Payday loans are capped at 1000%, after an extensive FCA review.

There is no precise legal definition of usury - but informal ones start somewhere above 1000%

As you suggest, the only argument here is whether the contract made it clear

 

[jimbof]

@perfumebrands you may be interested (given you are waiting on an FOS decision) to see another opinion from FOS on IWOCA's interest rate policies. In short, it seems unlikely they are going to agree with you...

V, a limited company, complains that IWOCA Ltd misled it into taking a loan with a high interest rate and would not provide any assistance when it struggled with repayments.

They didn't uphold V's complaint here, and cited examples of communications and dashboard info IWOCA say showed clearly the interest rates. So unless you can show actual evidence that this information clearly wasn't provided (and not just relying on not being able to understand it / some recollection it wasn't clear) I think you're in line for much the same result, at least from the FOS.