I wonder if anyone can advise me on this,

I took out car finance in 2008 with Welcome,

got into problems and the car went back feb 2009,

I now have MKDP on my case,

I did CCA them,

I have attached their response (attachment 1),

I responded to them:

'Thanks for the response to my initial complaint the contents of which have been duly noted.

However in light of the information disclosed there are several other matters which need to be addressed

regarding the alleged debt remaining under the terminated agreement.

1) It appears that the agreement was voluntarily terminated on or about the 12/02/2009,

this is news to me as I made no such request, as far as I was aware the vehicle was voluntarily surrendered.

I am sure you will realise that the car had a re-sale value which under the VT would not have been allocated to my account

and in this instance would have contributed to the amount outstanding on the agreement,

also there was no default information sent prior to recovery process,

so I was not made aware of any rights I may have had, this is a requirement under the CCA.

2) The agreement seems to include an insurance element,

this was not explained to me at the time and I certainly did not choose to purchase,

yet it appears to be included within the total credit price (this is confirmed by calculation of the APR).

Please confirm the purpose of this policy and explain why a charge for credit was not properly allocated in the agreement'[/b]

They have responded to this the other day,

I am a bit lost now as I thought as they owned the debt,

why should I have to go back to Welcome for info whilst MKDP continue chasing me?

They have also stated that I have advised it was VT, I resumed it was as per the paperwork they sent me.

Can anyone offer some advise how I should respond to them or the next step?

Many thanks in advance

you want it to vt not vs

else you 'll be liable for the whole amount not 50%

as for the ppi/gap/etc etc

and the penalty charges

get reclaiming!!

dx

we need to see the original agreement together with all the payment details,

to see how the figures work as regards vt or vs

and to see what insurances were added.

The default notice on which they are reliant is faulty, as it does not allow for service

Hi, the agreement and payments should be a in attachment 1

Hi, the agreement and payments should be a in attachment 1

yes thanks seen it now, will work on it later

points to note

1) they have not fulfilled your s79cca request. The agreement amongst other matters mentions clause 4 of the t&cs

no t&cs are present.(any other document referred to in the agreement)

2) the agreement itself is faulty

it is a multiple agreement under s18 cca1974 and must have two seperate headings in bold distinguishing type

An HP Agreement regulated by cca1974 AND A Credit Agreement regulated by cca1974.

Yours has only one (and thats A Credit Agreement)

Each part must have their own prescribed terms, your agreement fails on this as well

and this has lead to your confusion over the shortfall insurance the agreement contains;

3) the default notice is faulty, it does not allow anytime for service.

I will work on the vt/vs situation and figures tomorrow

For now I suggest that you merely inform them that their reply to your s79 request

does not comply with the requirements of s79(1)cca1974 and therefore s79(3) currently applies

Do not tell them why, let them figure that out

for your reference-

79 Duty to give hirer information.(1)The owner under a regulated consumer hire agreement, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the hirer and payment of a fee of [F1£1], shall give to the hirer a copy of the executed agreement and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the owner showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer, the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the hirer but remains unpaid and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a)an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the hirer, or

(b)a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.

(3)If the owner under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a)he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

as dx has advised put in a reclaim for the penalty charges and mis-sold insurance

Thanks for that theoldrouge and dx, I shall send them a short brief letter as above! Without meaning to sound completely stupid! How do I go about reclaiming the charges/insurance?

have you got all the statements and agreements?

or is what is above the complete works?

dx

I've update your attachment for you

so its better to view

dx

Hi dx, all I have is above

PPI is detailed below in link 1

as for the PENALTY fees

unpaid DD fees

make good fee [they are saying the car needed work]

Letter fee

telephone fee

you'll need the CISHEET

CISheet v101.xls

to get to the bottom of this, I think itmay be best to SAR Welcome.

They cant have it both ways, MKDP claim it is vs

Welcome have charged you a VT make good fee

now the vt figure would be ,

Half the agreement £6765.80

Less payments made £1458.90

Balance to complete VT £5306.90 inc any arrears if any at time of vt (disregard the insurance since this could never be enforced given the agreement)

This compares to the £6081.03 that MKDP are claiming

So letter re failed s79cca request to MKDP

Reclaims as dx has guided you on

SAR to Welcome

I have sent the SAR and letter to MKDP,

I will let you know their response,

just a quick question regarding reclaiming,

sorry, I have never done anything like this before,

I understand I list all the items, ie phone calls, shortfall insurance etc,

do I list the interest on the shortfall insurance?

and also, what do I put in the APR% box?

finally,

would it be claiming from the date of agreement until today?

many thanks for your patience...

PPI one claim [read below link 1] spreadsheet at the end

FEEs another sheet as above

put their int rate in cell D15

it does it for you

Hi All, I have finally received my SAR paperwork from Welcome, I have attached it for your info, it appears it was a VT.

thanks in advance

quick look

they cant charge for MOT - there is no direct remit under VT to do that

the DN is defective - must give date in correct format not 14 days

don't think they can wind through the insurance either, the agreement is ended you don't need it

confirms everything as said in posts #6 and#12 as above

vt doesnt terminate the ins element, but this needs reclaiming as advised

as dx says cant charge for mot, dn faulty but so is agreement

So, would I be right in presuming if both the DN and agreement are incorrect, this is unenforceable?

Until they comply with s79(1) they cannot enforce regardless of all the other issues

Hi All,

This has now been over 6 years,

also MKDP have come back with nothing,

should I send a statute barred letter?

or make a complaint to Ombudsman as they haven't resolved my query?

Thanks in advance

I'd leave them alone and get the reclaiming done

dx

I'd leave them alone and get the reclaiming done

 

 

dx

agreed

hi, after writing and emailing them with below

'the paperwork you provided does not comply with the requirements of s79(1)cca1974 and therefore s79(3) currently applies.'

They have replied with the following:

understand you are claiming that the above account is unenforceable under section 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

as we failed to supply you with the documents which you requested within 12+2 working days.

I can confirm that the above account was unenforceable whilst your request for the documents was outstanding.

However under section 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 it states while the account is unenforceable,

if we can provide you with the documents which you have requested after the 12+2 working days the account will becomes enforceable again.

Can someone confirm whether they have completely missed the point or have I?

Also, how should I respond?

Many thanks in advance

as post 21

dx

Hi all.. wondering if anyone can help.. it seems MKDP have not responded to me and assigned this debt to HPH2 and Robinson Way are managing it? Any help would be gratefully received