Welcome Finance **WON**

[groovychickmum]

hi again, court fees etc.aint got a clue.
but your defence needs to be for the unenforcablity of the agreements, the wilson case NEEDS to be added to your docs for court, this cannot go any other way but yours. the case went to the house of lords, therefore no judge can go against that ruling............which is YOUR defence, fee added before .

[groovychickmum]

read the wilson case.link above
0r
Your Rights: The Protection of Property Rights: The right to a fair hearing under Article 6: Introduction

The right to a fair hearing in disputes concerning property rights

Article 6(1) provides the right of access to a court in the determination of a person's civil rights and obligations. The ownership, use and enjoyment of property is a 'civil right' within the meaning of Article 6(1). Therefore in many disputes concerning the determination of property rights, the parties are entitled to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time.

A large number of decisions involving property rights are taken by public authorities that may not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal. However, in these instances it does not matter that the decision maker does not comply with the requirements of Article 6(1) provided that the decision is subject to control by a judicial body (ie judicial review) that has full jurisdiction and does satisfy the Article 6(1) guarantees of impartiality and independence.

This was considered in detail by the House of Lords in R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Holding and Barnes plc and others 2001 2 All ER 929. The House of Lords held that various planning procedures which involve intervention by the Secretary of State for the Environment are compatible with Article 6(1) due to the availability of judicial review.

An example of a breach of Article 6(1)
The Court of Appeal has held that certain provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are incompatible with Article 6(1) - Wilson v. First County Trust 2001 3 All ER 229 .

The facts of the case concerned a loan agreement between Mrs Wilson and a pawnbroker in which she received a loan of £5,000. The transaction involved a document fee of £250 and the loan agreement incorrectly stated the amount of credit to be £5,250 because the document fee, which was not itself credit, was added to the sum. The fact that the amount of credit was misstated meant that the loan agreement was not a properly executed regulated agreement because it did not contain all of the prescribed terms.

In consequence, the pawnbroker was required to apply to the court for an enforcement order. However, section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 deprives the court of any power to enforce a regulated agreement from which a prescribed term has been omitted. The Court of Appeal found that, in the absence of any legitimate justification for the policy, the blanket restriction on the enforcement of the pawnbroker's contractual rights under the loan agreement was incompatible with Article 6(1).

[streetgang]

thanks that is very interesting. what this appears to be saying is that as the arrangement fee wasnt part of the credit, the interest against it is unenforceable?

x

[groovychickmum]

lol.........EXACTLY

[groovychickmum]

In Turn,making The Agreement Unforcable.

[postggj]

you guys/girls are great many thanks

[groovychickmum]

I Only Joined In June This Year, And Thankfully By Many, Many Hours Of Reading Posts/links Etc, I Have Learnt Quite A Lot.
I Think This Forum Should Get Some Kind Of Award/recognition In The Pupil Eye,due To The Help Consumers From All Walks Of Life Get By Joining And Helping Each Other.

[postggj]

just a thought welcome made my life hell and its pay back time.
looking at the wilson case can i claim back all payments, originally looking for account/default removal

[postggj]

hope my thread helps all welcome clients

[postggj]

welcome have untill 18/10/07 to acknowledge my claim. as welcome are notoriouse for ignoring letters can they use the postal dispute as an excuse for not acknowledge my claim

[postggj]

just waiting for welcome to acknowledge my court claim
clocks ticking

[onevodka]

apologies for hijacking this thread but I have a burning question! Is there anything that can be done re: a loan with various arrangement fees/disbursal fees etc added to it, that has been PAID UP? I settled with Welcome Finance a couple of years ago and paid through the nose just to be rid of them. Is it too late to do anything now (apart from the mis-sold PPI but that's a different ball game!) sorry again to jump in. I just read your thread and wished I'd been a bit more clued up a couple of years ago...

[groovychickmum]

onevodka. i too am in the same position(1 loan paid off,and another in default).
i am going for (on both) ppi,charges etc
on the paid one, there was no early payment rebate,paid the whole lot at the amount stated on the agreement. if all else fails, they will get nothing for the default one as it has admin fee added BEFORE working out monthly payments.

[postggj]

thanks for the interest in my thread
still no contact from welcome, there early agreements ar not worth the paper they are written on. waiting for acknowledgement of claim. then with both barrells ppi. have not provided details of ppi with my Subject Access Request. i think there may be fraud involved. big commissions they receive. then financial defamation etc. hope they are getting worried as not backing down. with ref to postel strike can they use it as an excuse for not acknowledge claim. they have till the 18/10/07 many thanks

[JB9876]

subscribing - interested to know what happens on these

[dollies01]

Any news yet Post?
Would it be possible to post your p.o.c's ...........Im also about to start claiming mis-sold ppi and unenforceable agreements, but have no idea what to use on my court papers.
good luck with your claim, keep posting!

[postggj]

wilson case, including acceptance fee/charges before calculating interest
agreement is headed personel loan agreement. should be headed credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974
total charge for credit not included. no t&c or cancellation rights. agreement not properly executed. and removal of default. after this charges and ppi at 8% apr. they have until friday to acknowledge claim or they default ccj time

[postggj]

a quick note
at first welcome finance seemed a god send to people in my position. how wrong was i. they are valtures praying on people who dont know what they are getting into. believe me i am using every recoarse avalible to have these people by the throat. any body dealing with welcome claim and keep claiming. £400 a hit from fos then they might start treating there customers with more respect. and i hope there credit licence revoked.