Hello, thank you I did have a lovely birthday x I have had a few days to mope and moan and feel sorry for myself but now I'm all set to carry on the fight. It's a shame it's not over but it will be one day, so onwards and upwards as they say

I was just looking at the dates you have given, if it was a 120 month agreement then provided there was no PPI or anything the half time should be 60 months (5 years), the robbing, thieving ****!! Nothing they do is above board, please be very careful.

Hello, they are right in that you do need to tell them the whereabouts of the car, it is covered by Section 80 of the Consumer Credit Act. However, it doesn't necessarily mean they can do anything about it! As long as you have paid more than a third they will need to take you to court to repo your car. It's really important to know if there are any PPI or other insurances added to this agreement as it will affect the amount paid towards the third. Keep your car off the road until you find out for definite how much you have paid. If I were you I would write back to them and make a big point of mentioning it is parked on your private premises. I have a sneaky suspicion they may be a little wary of situations like this.

Hello, re-writing of the agreement is cause for concern as it will more than likely be a modifying agreement, this means that the first agreement is entirely null and void and all figures are based on the modifying agreement, (Section 82). The 'half' figure will be half of the 'new' agreement and unfortunately the payments made on the first agreement won't be counted. If at any point you have defaulted on this agreement, the option to VT will be gone as they would've requested the full amount from you. Please take extra care when dealing with welcome, they are extremely devious.

Thank you for your support, I really do appreciate it. Yes the trial was a travesty but I have taken a lot of positive things from it and shall take them forward into the next and hopefully final round. The trial started at 11am and ended at 4.30pm and during those long hours I learned that I was actually capable of standing up in a huge courtroom and fighting my case against a barrister, a solicitor, a legal compliance officer and one of their witnesses. They sent 4 men to deal with me and they certainly didn't get the whitewash they were hoping for! There were several points they had to concede and several times when they couldn't answer my questions without very red faces. I am 33 (today) and not particularly tall, so no matter what else comes of this, I already feel a sense of achievement I have 3 weeks to file my appeal so I will use all of that and not rush into anything, as much as I want to lol! The more I read on cag about the continued devious antics of welcome, the more determined I am to not let them get away with this. They clearly haven't learned anything and are still trying to flaunt the law There's even a brand new thread saying they are trying to repo a car without a court order when well over half has been paid! Thank you for your support and I will continue to fight to the bitter end.

Thank you x I'm kind of glad the judge did it the way he did. The issues in this case were huge and definitely needed more scrutiny than a one day County Court trial could have afforded. I really feel like the ground work has been dealt with and next the real decision will be made in a place where it can actually make a difference. I was genuinely touched reading your comments, you've made my day today thank you (and it's my birthday too!) There are many times when I feel less than brave and my strength falters, but my stubbornness always gets me through in the end lol! My children are 6 and 8 and I wouldn't be able to settle if I didn't think I was teaching them to always stand up to bullies and fight for what is right When the trial was over I left the building and got in my car

Thanks Wacky, that's the plan my friend x

I'm going to need some help with filing this appeal I think, I know very little about the appeals procedure-not for too long I hope! Perhaps I should start a new thread in Legal Issues??

I actually quite liked him, he's a funny man and not quite the confident, all knowing oracle he makes himself out to be! His 'rabbit caught in headlights' desperate looks from the witness box over to his counsel were very amusing

From well before the closing submissions the judge was already hinting about an appeal. Whatever his reasons, the judge had decided very early on that this case should be heard 'elsewhere' and not in his court room on that day. I had the wonderful opportunity of cross examining Mr P in the witness box, that in itself was priceless The amount of very awkward silences and mumbled responses was a picture! At one point the judge even said to him 'Mr P, please try to give some kind of answer', and yet he still found in their favour!

On the contrary, I believe the Judge knew exactly what powers he had, he just chose not to be responsible for the repercussions of ruling in my favour. To be fair to him if he had ruled in my favour his name would be all over everywhere by now and set to be used as 'persuasive' in many, many cases from here on. The politics of this case appear quite clear to me now, if only the law was about justice and not politics things may well have gone differently. Hey ho, I suspect that's just my naivety in expecting a wrong to righted

Your comments have really touched me, this whole fiasco has taken so much from me and my family. The support I have received on here and at home has been truly invaluable and I possibly may have folded before now without it. In return though, I feel it is my duty to see this through and achieve the result I set out to achieve. The judge went to great lengths to prove my case for trespass and did actually rule in my favour in that respect, but awarding nominal damages goes nowhere to discourage unscrupulous creditors from carrying on with these unlawful activities and totally flaunting the law. I'm afraid I just can't let this end here, the repercussions would be entirely ridiculous. Thank you again for your kind words and support x

Having slept on it I am totally incensed this morning I have gone over it a thousand times in my head, his exact words were 'the goods were not protected and this was not a chattel mortgage so no court order was needed' WTF???? The secret commission issue was another mysterious debacle! Even though I could show evidence that commission of over 30% was paid for the PPI he still ruled that only 2% commission was paid, (based on their verbal evidence alone), and that wasn't enough to make any real difference to anything, despite the fact that it was a secret!! The more I think about it the more convinced I am the judge made deliberate mistakes just so it would go to the High Court and he didn't have to deal with it. Even their barrister was shocked when the judge gave his verdict, as just a few minutes earlier he was practically saying we know we messed up on S92 but please be lenient with us when making an order under S140. The judge went to great lengths to prove that they entered my premises and repossessed the car but then failed to rule on it in accordance with statute??!!! Strangely, in summing up, he put great emphasis on the fact that the car was in my 'possession' at the time and even drew our attention to the word 'possession', its all so bizarre I can barely believe it. The only place for this case has to be the High Court.

and the same absolutely goes for me, if I didn't have the support of CAG I may well have given up in favour of the easy life a long time ago! Long live CAG

Thank you 8-) I could go on indefinitely about the details! In fairness to the judge, it was listed for a 1 day trial and I suppose it was his duty that it was concluded one way or another within one day. As it happens it already went on past 4.30 even though the court closes at 4! If he had gone on to find in my favour, the subsequent findings, decisions and judgement may well have gone on for at least another hour.

I didn't get the result I wanted but the Judge was very keen to wash his hands of it and get off home. He made several suggestive remarks along the lines of "raising that point elsewhere" and "this is a County Court, a higher Court may overturn my decision", almost inferring that this case would not end here today, and I believe that will be the only way this will get resolved. In fact it was the Judge himself that bought up the issue of an appeal, and despite his comments to the contrary, I very much got the impression he was encouraging me to do it almost putting words in my mouth I am actually not too concerned about today's result as a lot of very beneficial stuff came out of it It was proved beyond doubt that they entered my premises without my consent and repossessed the car, the only issue remaining now is the Judge's interpretation of Section 92 and whether it applies to HP agreements. It clearly does and is easily provable!

Well after a gruelling day in court things didn't go my way today The judge ruled that Section 92 does not apply to hire purchase agreements??! Hey ho, the High Court beckons...

It all smells of fish

I doubt very much they can issue a second default on this account, it seems more like scaremongering to me! When you SAR'd them did they provide copies of the court papers and the judgment?? I'm very suspicious of this alleged CCJ, it's just not welcome's style to take people to court for fear of having something against them come out in the wash. If they didn't action the PPI then I would say you have an extremely good case for misselling. Personally if it were me I would concentrate on getting the CCJ set aside in the first instance, if you have a CCJ on your file it's alot more damaging than a default or two.

Thank you all x I'm feeling quite overwhelmed by it all at the mo, it just seems so surreal that something that has totally overtaken the past 2 years of my life is finally coming to an end. Win or lose tomorrow I will know that I couldn't humanly have done any more than I did

What a great letter So what they basically saying is that if they didn't have the authority of Mrs GSMGuy, it would have been a breach of Section 92(1). Well that's easy enough to deal with then 8-) Now consent is a funny thing, what they really needed to have was the INFORMED consent of the debtor. In order to obtain an adequate defence to this case they need to show that they explained Mrs GSMGuy's statutory rights and subsequent protection to her with regard the removal of the vehicle from her premises. Personally I can't see how they can prove that if she was not even present at the time. I don't believe the Land Registry issue to have any bearing on this case, the law quite clearly states that they are not permitted to enter ANY premises and that includes that of a third party, unless they get the consent of the DEBTOR. The driveway could have belonged to Joe Bloggs, it doesn't vacate the issue that Mrs GSMGuy did not give her consent. Be wary that they may try to invoke Section 134 of the CCA 1974, but all you need to do to counter that is state that at no point did they sent you any written requests to return the vehicle and confirm that they didn't make any applications for the enforcement of the agreement.

and if they have a CCJ why aren't they just enforcing it as would be their legal right????

They seem to think they can hand out these default notices like sweets! As far as I can see there are numerous things wrong with this picture You had PPI, got ill and claimed on it. Did they say you couldn't claim on it? If you couldn't claim on your PPI when you became ill then it was missold but if you were permitted to claim on it then there shouldn't have been any arrears! If they defaulted you in December 2008 then subsequently obtained a CCJ, how can they then send a new default notice now?? The account was terminated by means of a CCJ if nothing else, they can't default for arrears on a terminated account. It appears they are suggesting that if you pay the arrears then the account will continue on as if nothing had ever happened, (which incidentally is the entire purpose of default notices!). I fail to see how that can happen being as they already have a CCJ against you As far as statements go, they are obliged by virtue of the 2006 Amendments to send out statements of account from October 2008 so I can't see how they can admit no statements exist. I think you have a very good case for getting this set aside for many reasons but you will probably need to show the court why you have waited so long before applying. Also the issues that will arise as a result of this may well put this to bed once and for all.

Thanks so much for your support, it's really appreciated I took a trip down to Worcester the other day and had a look round the Court, it is immense!! I am very nervous but I've come this far and I will see it through to the end no matter what the outcome. I am hoping that being in such a grand Court building with reporters constantly posted outside will ensure that the Judge lottery issue will be minimal! Thanks again to everyone for your support, I couldn't have got this far without it x x x 1 day to go........

Huh??? You have a default and CCJ on your file from this welcome account and they have just sent you a default notice?? Seriously?