penalty charges over the last 6yrs

letter/phone/late/over/ debt management/its raining

usually a fixed sum [£12/£10 etc]

with the word FEE after it in the statements

dx

penalty charges over the last 6yrs

 

letter/phone/late/over/ debt management/its raining

 

usually a fixed sum [£12/£10 etc]

 

with the word FEE after it in the statements

 

dx

Do I apply interest, is there a calculator anywhere

CISheet v101.xls

enter every one on its date

put their int rate in cell d 15

dx

CISheet v101.xls

 

enter every one on its date

 

put their int rate in cell d 15

 

dx

Dont know if I have done it right but here is the calculations.

[ATTACH]50174[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50175[/ATTACH]

capitalisation is interest you cant inc that

neither conversion fee, nor HDPI

nor assessment

FIXED sum penalties only

capitalisation is interest you cant inc that

neither conversion fee, nor HDPI

nor assessment

 

FIXED sum penalties only

Brilliant thanks for all the info, just one more question, on both sets of statements their is interest added at the start of the accounts and if capitalisation is interest does that mean they have added it twice.

dunno

safe to say those statements as per usual for welcome are total fabrication anyhow

they don't match the agreement you have

neither I bet the missing agreement.

if you look closely [which I didn't either

they've not actually charged you any penalty fees in the 10/08 - 07/13 account

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

I would suggest on the 05/06 - 04-13

where you see conversion/default fee of £20/£10/£25

telephone fee/unpaid DD fee

you include those

CHECK the running balance though

that they have been debited

where they appear twice together

dx

[ATTACH]50220[/ATTACH]

does this seem ok

what are you trying to achieve at the moment? Are cabot chasing?

what are you trying to achieve at the moment? Are cabot chasing?

Yes CABOT are chasing and they have added a extra £1000 to the account, all I am wanting is a true figure for settlement so we can close this out and get out of this nightmare.

can you scan in the latest letter you have received from cabot. They cannot add interest unless the original agreement, which no one has states that they can. They need telling that you have previously made a s79 request and you have not received a compliant reply

they cant add anything

dx

they cant add anything.

you are being fleeced

the recon agreement was never signed by you but a welcome member ofstaff?

dx

KK, get that letter from cabot posted up,

as dx says you are being seen off by cabot,

no original agreement has been produced,

we need to send a letter to cabot to set out your position,

and make sure they comply with the fca requirements

Here is the last letter from CABOT which states that they want me to get in touch within 21 to discuss payments.

ok, for now send something along these lines to cabot

--Thank you for your letter dated March23rd 2014,

the contents of which have been noted.

On March 13th 2013, I sent a request under s79(1)CCA 1974 to Welcome Finance in respect of the above numbered account,

together with the statuatory fee of £1.

I can confirm that as of todays date,15/04/2014, no reply which complies with the requirements of s79(1)CCA 1974 has been received by myself,

and the above account therefore remains in dispute due to this and other related matters,

In this regard I would refer yourselves to the Guidance as set by the Financial Conduct Authority, in particular-

Failure to comply

CONC 13.1.6

01/04/2014

FCA

(1) Failure to comply with the provisions means that the agreement becomes unenforceable while the failure to comply persists, and the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.

(2) In such cases, a firm should in no way, either by act or omission, mislead a customer as to the enforceability of the agreement.

(3) In particular, a firm should not in such cases either threaten court action or other enforcement of the debt or imply that the debt is enforceable when it is not.

(4) The firm should, in any communication or request for payment in such cases, make clear to the customer that although the debt remains outstanding it is unenforceable.

(5) In the judgment of McGuffick -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm) Flaux J held in a case under section 77 of the CCA that passing details of a debt to a credit reference agency and related activities do not constitute enforcement under the CCA. He also held that steps taken with a view to enforcement, including demanding payment from a claimant, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and the actual bringing of proceedings, are not themselves 'enforcement' under the CCA. On the other hand he confirmed that the actions listed under sections 76(1) and 87(1) of the CCA did amount to enforcement notwithstanding that some of the actions 'less obviously' amounted to enforcement. These actions are demanding earlier payment, recovering possession of goods or land, treating any right conferred on the debtor by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, enforcing any security and terminating the agreement.

(6) While Flaux J agreed with the decision of HHJ Simon Brown QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Tesco Personal Finance v Rankine [2009] C.C.L.R. 3 that commencing proceedings was not enforcement, but a step taken with a view to enforcement, both he and HHJ Simon Brown appear to have been drawing a distinction between commencing proceedings and entering judgment in those proceedings.

(7) This guidance deals only with the question of whether an agreement is unenforceable in relation to sections 77, 78 and 79 of the CCA. A lender's rights to enforce an agreement may be restricted for a variety of reasons, by the Act, by or under the CCA and by virtue of the general law.

(8) However, where a firm is aware that an agreement is unenforceable because of non-compliance with an information request under section 77, 78 or 79 of the CCA, a firm should make it clear when communicating to a customer about a debt that the debt is in fact unenforceable. Failure to do so, in that case, would in the FCA's view unfairly mislead the customer by omission. Any communication that implies expressly or otherwise that a debt is enforceable when it is known that it is not, would be misleading. One way to avoid this would be for the firm to explain to the customer the full meaning of 'unenforceable'. -I trust that this clarifies my position and that you will pay due regard to the FCA guidance in any reply, Yours etc

Thanks theoldrouge I have printed the letter off and will send it recorded delivery tomorrow

Ok sent the letter as stated above and received the following reply from CABOT:

Dear Mrs xxxxxxx

In your letter you state that you have previously made a request for information pertaining to your account pursuant to section 77/78 of the CCA 1974.

Upon reviewing our records, we can confirm that CABOT did not receive this request and as such we were not aware that this information was required. However, we can confirm that a request has now been made to WELCOME for the required documentation.

We anticipate that we will be able to provide this information within 40 days. In the event we are unlikely to obtain this information within these time limits we will write to you again.

If you have any queries about your account please call our customer advisors.

It seems that CABOT want us start all over again.

Crapbot Like to quote " industry guidance " allowing 40 days for compliance with a CCA request, it matters not 12 +2 days from the date requested from Welcome is all the time they have.

so cabot are now aware of your request, and any begging letters from them can be safely ignored unless or until such time as is highly unlikely, they happen to reply with a true and accurate copy of the ORIGINAL agreement

So does this mean that we have to start the whole process over again ?

Wait to see what Cabot provide, meanwhile do nothing.

Wait to see what Cabot provide, meanwhile do nothing.

Well the 40 day period is up and yet again no response from WELCOME or CABOT.

no need to chase continue doing nothing, no cca means no enforcement as per conc13.1.6 as above

no need to chase continue doing nothing, no cca means no enforcement as per conc13.1.6 as above

However does the 40 day period include weekends or is it working days ? Also I now have a company car so no longer need the Megane so I will need to sell, could I do this ?