I have a secured loan with welcome but due to large mortgage payment every month aswell as other things Ive paid one installment in the last 6-8 months. Now looking at my credit file, it has 8 missed payments and states that the credit agreement has ended as the account is now in default.

Shaun, personally I wouldn't go to Welcome asking for a re-write at this stage (even if they are still doing them). Also note that just because they have put a default (8 missed payments) on your credit file it doesn't mean the agreement has ended. That only happens when they send you a termination notice, or take some other action that effectively shows they have terminated the agreement.

However, since your credit file is showing the account as defaulted Welcome should have sent you a default notice. Do you have that (Welcome are very good at not following the quite precise regulations governing form and content of Default Notices)? Do you have a copy of the agreement?

Can you give us some broad brush details about the secured loan? Such as amount, term, when taken out, approximately how much you have paid. Did you get an annual statement in October? If so, are there an excessive quantity of charges? Do you get lots of phone calls from Welcome chasing payment? It would be very unusual to miss the number of payments you have without a high level of attempted enforcement action from Welcome. If they are very quiet with you it may give certain clues.

I would start by sending a CCA request to Welcome (Compliance Department in Nottingham), letter in template library, print don't sign your name, enclose £1 postal order. Let's see if they have your agreement.

Then about a week later send a SAR (again to Compliance), print don't sign your name, enclose £10 postal order.

I have to say BD I am inclined to agree with you, in fact I posted to this effect a week or so ago.

Yes, it is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/238203-bank-charges-any-news.html#post2649608, and you agreed with me then, too!

BO2, I noticed in the big Welcome thread that people were wishing postggj well for his knee op yesterday, so I guess he isn't going to be around for a little while.

It means you won! Merely by stating you were going to defend the claim and asking them for the documents in the CPR 31.14 request.

My take on it would be that when they asked for (and got, or maybe didn't get) those documents from M&S they found some fundamental flaw in them that made it unwise for them to continue the case. I was going to say impossible, but that doesn't seem to stop some solicitors.

I would hope for your sake that this means that the (alleged) debt will be written off by M&S. Since they started a claim but discontinued it that would seem to be the only logical conclusion. However before you crack open the champagne (or whatever is your preferred method of celebration) I would await more knowledgeable minds than mine to confirm that, having taken this action and discontinued, that they would not/should not/can not take action again. They will also be able to confirm to you what steps you should take next (for instance writing to the solicitors or M&S to confirm the debt has been written off).

If only more of these claims went away as easily as this!

I thought the 17th was the end of welcome-whats happened?

See: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-finance/238503-welcome-now-officially-dead.html

If you go on the Companies House website and look up Welcome Financial Services and Progressive Financial Services you will see that the two of them did a name swap on 01/12/2006 (ignore the entries with numbers beginning NF, they are Northern Ireland companies).

I believe that up to that point the company that had been Welcome and is now Progressive had been dormant for a while, having been formed on 30/11/1982 as Forbridge Finance Limited and changed its name on 01/12/1989 to Welcome Financial Services Limited.

This is why if you have an agreement from before December 2006 you will see it is written in the name "Progressive Financial Services Limited trading as Welcome Financial Services", and the legal charge on your property (for secured loans) is in the name of Progressive Financial Services Limited.

Where have you found that EBOY? Is it following today's shareholder meeting?

The long awaited and clearly apparent news has arrived. Welcome will be collecting out the loans...

That, presumably, would be where they are in possession of a properly executed agreement?

Also, a fair number of people are going to have agreements (possibly secured) up to as long as 300 months.

I had read the MSE update before looking in CAG today. Personally I am inclined to agree with bigdebtor, and feel that rather than let the OFT make a mess of things again it would be better if we all individually submitted claims to the courts. OK the banks may be able to field the odd barrister up against a small percentage of claimants, who may struggle to win the argument in such circumstances, but I feel a very high proportion of us would get our charges back.

I think the caveat here is as long as the claim is under £5,000 and hence in the Small Claims track, which means the individual wouldn't be liable for the banks costs if they lost? Is this correct, perhaps someone can confirm that?

jonoh, I don't think they are "privy to information about the judgement", one of which is due to be handed down in January I believe. It is just that the longer they can string things out for the higher the likelihood of there being a case that might have been found in their favour. Or at least one that they can try to bamboozle the less knowledgeable with. Plus also some people will get fed up, capitulate and start paying them again.

Furthermore the size of the unenforceable debt that they have because of all these cards must be huge. Maybe HSBC and M&S are in negotiations about how the write-offs should be funded (M&S sold the finance business to HSBC sometime after the &MORE card was launched I believe)? It would make commercial sense to limit the number of write-offs they agree to in any month to prevent them becoming a drain on the balance sheet. Also if a whole lot were written off at once the media would soon get hold of it and they would be deluged with other claims.

Thanks grumpymoo. I'll setup the standing order, I can always delete it before January (the wonders of online banking!).

jonoh, there is a very good letter here to send to a new DCA who have been passed an account in dispute:

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/574-letter-when-account-has-been-passed-on-whilst-agreement-request-is-in-dispute.

I am just about to have to write one myself to Phillips in Darlington who M&S seem to have now instructed to try and collect, Since I sent Collect Direct UK packing some time ago.

I do have to wonder if they are playing for time hoping the result of a test case will go in their favour?

Grumpymoo

 

HSBC, A/C 61225669, 40-02-50

Plus you will need your account number to hand.

A little while ago this information was given as Welcome's bank account details into which standing order payments could be made, and was confirmed as working by one or two people at the time.

Could anyone confirm please that payments to this account still work (I am in a position now to set up my monthly payments by standing order and just want to check that Welcome haven't moved bank account in the meantime). Thanks.

Hello again Ieuan. I would go along with what middenmess is saying. Take your time and enjoy your payment holiday. Looking at your timeline you mention cancelling one DD in September, is that when all were cancelled (my mind tells me some were cancelled later)? As it is, and presuming at least 2 monthly payments haven't been made by now you are doing very well for them not to have stepped up collection activity to the annoying level (many phone calls, Triton).

So it would seem they are treating your situation with the seriousness it deserves. Therefore give yourselves a break, and enjoy the Christmas and New Year period. Wait and see what NatWest decide to do next, contemplate a bit, and pick things up again in the new year.

Landy, as I see it this is what has happened:

• As peterlucas has said, the judge has decided without either you or LTSB being present to stay your claim until 26/02/2010;
  
• He has ordered you and LTSB to endeavour to settle the case by agreement;
  
• If you (or LTSB) oject to this you must apply withing 7 days with reasons as to why the case should not be stayed;
  
• When you and LTSB fail to reach agreement, and at some point before 26/02/2010 you apply to have the stay lifted and your claim then goes to a hearing.
  

I would agree with peterlucas here as to your approach. Don't make the application for your claim not to be stayed at this point. Make an effort (however token you wish it to be) to reach agreement with LTSB. When that fails apply to have the stay lifted and a date for a hearing set. You look good because you have endeavoured to reach agreement but silly intransigent bank looks bad because they have rebuffed you.

As per the links in this post: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2602258.html.

The (Special) General Meeting of the Shareholders is being held on 16 December "to consider the serious loss of capital pursuant to section 656 of the Companies Act 2006".

The Meeting of the Bondholders is being held on 17 December to approve the signing of the Standstill and Equalisation Agreement.

Thanks C2.

I'm just guessing that in say 6 - 9 months some law will have become clearer possibly/probably in favour of debtors in terms of enforceability.

I really do hope so (in favour of debtors I mean)!

Re: Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angry cat

Just seen the following on Ceefax; 04/12/2009

Gallahad, was the above in response to my question "Could I ask please what the "test cases" people are referring to are about? In particular which precise sets of circumstances do they apply to?".

If so, thanks, however I am interested in knowing what circumstances those "test cases" are going to be dealing with, and I couldn't see that in the BBC report. For instance, are any of them dealing with an application by the debtor for a declaration under CCA1974 s.124(1) where the creditor appears not to have the original agreement?

Yes, they may very well have satisfied their obligations under "s.77 CCA, Regulations 3(1) of the CCA (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983, and recent guidance from the OFT". However, as post says, they do need the original should they ever decide to take you to court.

I would go back ot that undated, unwitnessed legal charge. It is my understanding that for a secured loan that is an intrinsic part of the agreement. So without a properly executed legal charge they don't have an agreement. We could do with getting one of the experts to confirm that for you.

I then got an alert from Experian. I checked the alert and found that my account has been marked as settled. I assume that they have not given up but have sold on to DCA perhaps?

Hello there lifeafterdebt. Have you really just struck extremely lucky?

How long ago did you receive the alert/check your file? What is the date your credit report is saying the account was settled on? (I understand you might not want to give the exact date, but are we talking a week ago, a month?) If it was recently I would suggest there may be a letter slowly crawling its way to you (you know how long some of their post seems to take).

As far as I am aware if a debt has been sold on the original shouldn't be marked as settled, but rather it should be removed from your report, to be replaced by an account reported on by whoever the debt was sold on to.

Just to be clear, this was a Co-op credit card? How long had you been in the payment plan? What was the Co-op reporting on your credit file, was it permanently 6 months late markers? Roughly how much was still outstanding on the account (again a ball-park figure will do)?

I feel Lexis and myself will be watching your thread with great interest!

I've gained SC clearance despite having Defaults on my CRA file

Going back to the DV/SC question. I could understand that DV (Developed Vetting - required for the most sensitive appointments and tasks, involving long-term and uncontrolled access to top-secret material) might be difficult to obtain with defaults. However it is good to hear of someone with SC (Security Check - required for posts involving long-term, frequent and uncontrolled access to secret assets and occasional and controlled access to top-secret material) despite defaults.

Could I ask please what the "test cases" people are referring to are about? In particular which precise sets of circumstances do they apply to?

Anyone else noticed the site seems to have changed recently and quoting a post doesn't quote the quotes within it?

And possibly having to complain to the CRAs to get them to show the account as defaulted so it drops off in 6 years time, since the unCo-op seem poor at reporting such things to them.This really bugs me. They have no right to add it, they have nothing more than an application, they have terminated any agreement (which they never had!) that may have allowed them to continue processing, and yet they are still dumping all over our files!

I take your point Lexis, but what really irks me is that of the 8 accounts of mine in the DMP all but the Co-op and RBS have registered the defaults with the CRAs, whereas those 2 are persistly showing me as 6 months late with payments. I have a theory that a default on your credit report is better than 36 months of 6 months late. (Think about it, a default disappears after 6 years, those 6 months late will be there until the DMP is finished in 10 years, then for 6 years thereafter.)

just a thought, if by some chance the account is taken out of dispute and continues as normal (yeah, like that would every happen with Welcome) I assume that the withheld payments are still due and its basically puts the agreement end date back by the number of months withheld???

Yes the payments would still be due. This happened to me with my HP agreement for my car (not Welcome). They took 2 months to send a properly executed agreement, during which I withheld payment. When they had sent the agreement they tried to start collection activity for the missing payments, so I wrote, politley but firmly, stating that I had not been paying them as they had been in default, and suggesting that the missing 2 payments should be paid at the end of the original agreement term. They agreed to this (and now on my credit file it shows the agreement as being 62 months).

they recieved the cca letter on 13/11

That means the 12 working days were up on 01/12, so yes, you can put the account into dispute.

And my partner has not paid them since 11/2008, and that was a payment at the time of re-write, prior to that the previous last payment was in 05/2008.

From the posts a few pages back about the standstill agreement:

• The unaudited results of the Group for the nine months ended 30 September 2009, taken from the management accounts, show a loss before tax of £347.4 million. As at 30 September 2009, loans and advances to customers amounted to £1.9 billion and gross external borrowings amounted to £2.7 billion (£2.3 billion net of cash at bank).
  

30 September was day 273 in 2009, so by my reckoning that is a loss of £1.27 million per day.