Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 161 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
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

How on earth do Welcome calculate their interest


hybrid77
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4485 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Well, they call it CAPITALISATION, but it's interest. On my statements it says calculated on the daily outstanding balance, but every which way I try, NOTHING adds up! My plan was to get their miscalculations printed out before tea, but I'm going to be sitting here all bloomin night. Does anybody have any insight into Welcome mathematics?

 

I'm arguing with them over some old arrears but they can't tell me the exact figure. From my calculations on the contractual paments and actual payments, even after their charges and additional interest, the arrears are cleared (plus some), yet I'm still being charged a 'default sum fee interest' every month and their advice is to carry on overpaying ... stuff that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

hehe

welcome [pun intended]

 

to the great world of welcome fleecers ltd.

 

i'd have a read of a few thread

that will give you most of the info you need.

 

but you are not alone!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

nice link

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I'd already tried regular amortization ... way out.

 

I'll let you know if mine is the same .... just inputting the inital figures doesn't work, but it might get me a bit closer.

 

I can get the figures to £5.50 a month out with amortization and a bit of fiddling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, mines definately not rule of 78s, my interest rate is going up by a tiny amount every month rather than down, but not by the same amount, not on any form of scale, and not by the number of days in the month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hallelujah!!!!!

 

My loan started on 30 nov, 1st payment on 1st jan. They've added the .5 month to the inital inital loan amount (doesn't show this though) then capitalised some of it. After 60 months regular payments, we'll still owe that half month. Nice little money earner for them, that nobody spots.

 

Now I've worked this out, where do I go with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

but until the end of the agreement, they could argue that the monthly interest rate will get adjusted later on to take account for it ... if there's any charges or arrears by then, it would be very difficult to argue with them and prove they've done otherwise.

 

Interest rate on the loan is supposed to be 21%, but the statement adds up to 21.3% in the first 12 months of on-time payments. I can't find any laws which say the statement has to tally with the agreement.

 

I've sent a letter asking for an explanation and I've to send my letter and their reply to trading standards and FOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Can any one* help. I am a bit confused with rule 78.

 

Can Rule 78 be used when calculating the original figures as stated on the loan agreement or is it purely for calculating the repayment figures. Any supporting legislation ect most appreciated. *Why have an APR if Rule 78 calculator used?

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

to further confuse and rip off the punter.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Apparently use of rule 78 was considered unfair since may 2005.

 

Surely, if they (the sc*m) have issued loans since that date and are being repaid under the use of rule 78, then surely the agreements are unenforceable??????

 

Anyone agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same issue I thought my Total amount of credit was incorrect due to certain members on this forum not knowing how welcome work there agreements out. Welcome and the FOS informed me this is how they do it.

 

They charge interestlink3.gif to Interest bearing Loan agreements based on a monthly flat rate which is calculated on the outstanding balance.

 

(AIR)This is the monthly Interest rate x12 which gives you the annual flat which is proberly stated on your agreement somewhere.

 

The APR is a compounded rate that includes the charge for credit (Acceptance Fee, MIF) as interest.

 

If you read my thread you will see I was informed that my figures were incorrect and Challenged this with the foslink3.gif for 6 months to be told the above and my complaint wasnt upheld.

 

This was how welcome worked my agreement out, wether everybodies elses is the same I would'nt like say.

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Emanevs

 

OK so interest is calculated on a monthly basis in my case 1.8% which means AIR is 21.6 % this is just 1.8 x 12. The 23.9 % interest as stated on my ageement is 23.9% This is the annual rate that includes the effect of compounding, which is interest charged on interest.

 

So my agreement was

 

18591.90 loan and ppi

interest charge 29610.17

acceptance 235.00

mif 1625.45

 

total charge for credit 31470.62 and monthly payment 417.19.

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right, but it's my MONTHLY interest rate that's reducing each month when I look closely at the capitalisation each month. On the face of it, everything looks as it should, but by the end of the term, I'll still have an outstanding balance. The only way I get the same interest rate applied each month is if I increase the initial loan amount.

 

5476.27 94.71 148.39 1.7295%

5422.59 93.68 148.39 1.7276%

5367.88 92.73 148.39 1.7275%

5312.22 91.75 148.39 1.7271%

5255.58 90.76 148.39 1.7269%

5197.95 89.75 148.39 1.7266%

5139.31 88.73 148.39 1.7265%

5079.65 87.68 148.39 1.7261%

5018.94 86.62 148.39 1.7259%

4957.17 85.54 148.39 1.7256%

4894.32 84.44 148.39 1.7253%

4830.37 83.32 148.39 1.7250%

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would'nt like to comment on yours Hybrid77 its took me 6 month to get welcome to admit how mine is calculated.

 

Whats your opinion emanevs ?

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of a couple of things:

 

1) The use of using rule 78 is unfair - FACT.

Perhaps someone can think of what law we could use against the **** in this respect giving us a loan of which has unfair contract or term?

 

2) The way in which the loan is paid off makes a whole mockery of the interest amount stated on the loan.

 

3) If the interest rate is incorrectly stated on our loan agreements, then clearly schedule 6 (prescribed terms) will mean that a court must declare the agreement unenforceable.

 

4) Once the agreement is delcared unenforceable, then they have an invalid security of which must be removed.

 

Can anyone help with (1) case law??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule of 78 only applies to the calculation of rebates if you pay off the loan early. Welcome work out actual interest in the way the BB described above. If you want to understand how this is done, have a look at my interest turorial which is linked from my signature.

 

I suspect that the interest is correctly stated on your laon, it's just you haven't understood it.

 

More to the point, did you have PPI on the loan or other insurance. We now know that Welcome pay themselves a massive commission on insurance on their loans which they dodn't tell you about. This is very very naughty indeed and renders the loan void. Without prejudice to it being void, the loan amount, charge for credit and APR are also then all wrong, which would render the loan agreement unenforceable if it wasn't void.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about mortgage indemnity fees - do they count as insurance? who underwrites them, that is the question.

 

With 'proper' insurance, like PPI for example, Welcome act as insurance broker. As such they are allowed to pay themselves a commission but only if they tell you and you agree to it. If they don't tell you, it means the commission is secret and case law views that as a type of fraud. Given then that the agreement is fraudulent, it is void. That is, the agreements is deemed not to exist.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this. Have a look.

 

With my agreement my problem is also this:

 

I signed for a total amount of credit - £25000

the duration was 121 months

the payment was xxx

the interest rate was 14.00%

 

Yet,

 

I had my annual statment:

 

total amount of credit £27,985 (inc. MIF and acceptance fee)

a minimum duration term of 121 months

payments remained the same.

interest rate was 13.20%

 

SURELY UNENFORCEABLE?????

 

If so, How could I put this to a Judge - Politely

 

Many thanks,

Welcome MIF letter page 01.jpg

Welcome MIF letter page 02.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4485 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...