ok if you could, need more info. This is what welcome are throwing in my face. Am off to bed, up early to work at the salt mine.

does anyone have anymore info on this case. Ive tralled the internet and this is all I can find: 2007] CTLC Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited t/a Welcome Financial Services The High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Liverpool District Registry, Mercantile Court Before HHJ Pelling QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) 26 July 2006 Consumer credit - Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 —mortgage indemnity fee — whether insurance premium — whether credit or part of the total charge for credit Summary: The Claimant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act") and secured on the Claimant's house. A mortgage indemnity fee ("MIF") of £1,441.89 was imposed by the creditor and its payment spread over the term of the loan. In return for payment of the MIF, the creditor promised not to pursue the debtor for any shortfall in the event of a sale of the mortgaged property. The creditor treated the MIF as part of the total charge for credit and so did not include it in the figure stated as the amount of credit in the agreement. Section 9(4) of the 1974 Act provides that no item entering into the total charge for credit is to be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment. The amount of credit was stated to be £13,108.05. If the MIF had been included in the amount of credit, it would have been £14,549.94. The Claimant sought a declaration under Section 142(1) of the 1974 Act that the Defendant was not entitled to enforce the agreement, on the ground that it did not contain a correct statement of the amount of credit as required by Section 6l(l)(a) of the 1974 Act and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, with the result that the agreement was altogether unenforceable under Section 127(3). He also sought an order that the entry relating to the charge be removed from HM Land Registry, pursuant to Section 106© of the 1974 Act. It was not in dispute that, if the MIF was payable under a contract of insurance, it would have fallen outside the total charge for credit, as defined by regulation 4 of the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and would have formed part of the credit, since all insurance premiums other than those falling within regulation 4© are excluded from the total charge for credit by regulation 5(1 )(i). The Claimant maintained that the MIF was an insurance premium, in reliance upon Prudential Insurance v IRC [1904] 2 KB 659. Held: That the amount of the credit was correctly stated, as the MIF was not payable under a contract of insurance (paragraph 19). Prudential Insurance v IRC did not provide an exhaustive definition of insurance (paragraphs 11 and 12). If the Prudential Insurance v IRC test were to be applied, the MIF would not satisfy the criteria because the Claimant had bought a financial package and not the right to receive a benefit on the happening of a future contingency (paragraph 1:cool:. Support can be found in Humberclyde Finance v Thompson [1997] CCLR 23, where the concession that a waiver was not insurance was impliedly approved by Brooke LJ (paragraphs 13 and 14). The MIF was analogous to collision damage waiver and the FSA's analysis that such a waiver was not insurance appeared correct and applicable (paragraph 1:cool:. To treat the MIF as an item falling within Page 4 1 now read this: Mortgage Indemnity Charge (sometimes referred to as a High Percentage Lending Fee) For high Loan to Value (LTV) mortgages ie. where the loan is not much less than the value of the property, it is common practice for the lender to take out a form of ‘insurance’ to protect against some or all of the losses incurred if the property needs to be taken into possession because of serious arrears. It is common practice for lenders to pass this charge on to the borrower. Depending on the amount of loan and the LTV the Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee charge can be a significant cost eg. a £47,500 mortgage on a purchase price/valuation of £50,000 would result in a £750 charge on a typical MIG charge of 7.5% on a normal lending limit of 75% loan to value. Most lenders have a different name for this charge ie. it may not appear on the mortgage Offer as Mortgage Indemnity Charge or High Percentage Lending Fee. There are some important facts to understand about the mortgage indemnity charge. It acts as a form of insurance for the lender not the borrower. This means that the lender can claim part or all of its ‘losses’ incurred repossessing the property from the insurance company providing the MIG cover. Note that even after repossession the former borrower will remain liable for any sums owing (shortfall between selling price and mortgage outstanding plus arrears, lenders legal costs and any other charges applied to the mortgage) and can be pursued by the insurance company for payment at a subseq

does anyone have anymore info on this case. Ive tralled the internet and this is all I can find: 2007] CTLC Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited t/a Welcome Financial Services The High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Liverpool District Registry, Mercantile Court Before HHJ Pelling QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) 26 July 2006 Consumer credit - Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 —mortgage indemnity fee — whether insurance premium — whether credit or part of the total charge for credit Summary: The Claimant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act") and secured on the Claimant's house. A mortgage indemnity fee ("MIF") of £1,441.89 was imposed by the creditor and its payment spread over the term of the loan. In return for payment of the MIF, the creditor promised not to pursue the debtor for any shortfall in the event of a sale of the mortgaged property. The creditor treated the MIF as part of the total charge for credit and so did not include it in the figure stated as the amount of credit in the agreement. Section 9(4) of the 1974 Act provides that no item entering into the total charge for credit is to be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment. The amount of credit was stated to be £13,108.05. If the MIF had been included in the amount of credit, it would have been £14,549.94. The Claimant sought a declaration under Section 142(1) of the 1974 Act that the Defendant was not entitled to enforce the agreement, on the ground that it did not contain a correct statement of the amount of credit as required by Section 6l(l)(a) of the 1974 Act and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, with the result that the agreement was altogether unenforceable under Section 127(3). He also sought an order that the entry relating to the charge be removed from HM Land Registry, pursuant to Section 106© of the 1974 Act. It was not in dispute that, if the MIF was payable under a contract of insurance, it would have fallen outside the total charge for credit, as defined by regulation 4 of the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and would have formed part of the credit, since all insurance premiums other than those falling within regulation 4© are excluded from the total charge for credit by regulation 5(1 )(i). The Claimant maintained that the MIF was an insurance premium, in reliance upon Prudential Insurance v IRC [1904] 2 KB 659. Held: That the amount of the credit was correctly stated, as the MIF was not payable under a contract of insurance (paragraph 19). Prudential Insurance v IRC did not provide an exhaustive definition of insurance (paragraphs 11 and 12). If the Prudential Insurance v IRC test were to be applied, the MIF would not satisfy the criteria because the Claimant had bought a financial package and not the right to receive a benefit on the happening of a future contingency (paragraph 1:cool:. Support can be found in Humberclyde Finance v Thompson [1997] CCLR 23, where the concession that a waiver was not insurance was impliedly approved by Brooke LJ (paragraphs 13 and 14). The MIF was analogous to collision damage waiver and the FSA's analysis that such a waiver was not insurance appeared correct and applicable (paragraph 1:cool:. To treat the MIF as an item falling within Page 4 1 now read this: Mortgage Indemnity Charge (sometimes referred to as a High Percentage Lending Fee) For high Loan to Value (LTV) mortgages ie. where the loan is not much less than the value of the property, it is common practice for the lender to take out a form of ‘insurance’ to protect against some or all of the losses incurred if the property needs to be taken into possession because of serious arrears. It is common practice for lenders to pass this charge on to the borrower. Depending on the amount of loan and the LTV the Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee charge can be a significant cost eg. a £47,500 mortgage on a purchase price/valuation of £50,000 would result in a £750 charge on a typical MIG charge of 7.5% on a normal lending limit of 75% loan to value. Most lenders have a different name for this charge ie. it may not appear on the mortgage Offer as Mortgage Indemnity Charge or High Percentage Lending Fee. There are some important facts to understand about the mortgage indemnity charge. It acts as a form of insurance for the lender not the borrower. This means that the lender can claim part or all of its ‘losses’ incurred repossessing the property from the insurance company providing the MIG cover. Note that even after repossession the former borrower will remain liable for any sums owing (shortfall between selling price and mortgage outstanding plus arrears, lenders legal costs and any other charges applied to the mortgage) and can be pursued by the insurance company for payment at a subseq

does anyone have anymore info on this case. Ive tralled the internet and this is all I can find: 2007] CTLC Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited t/a Welcome Financial Services The High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Liverpool District Registry, Mercantile Court Before HHJ Pelling QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) 26 July 2006 Consumer credit - Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 —mortgage indemnity fee — whether insurance premium — whether credit or part of the total charge for credit Summary: The Claimant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant which was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act") and secured on the Claimant's house. A mortgage indemnity fee ("MIF") of £1,441.89 was imposed by the creditor and its payment spread over the term of the loan. In return for payment of the MIF, the creditor promised not to pursue the debtor for any shortfall in the event of a sale of the mortgaged property. The creditor treated the MIF as part of the total charge for credit and so did not include it in the figure stated as the amount of credit in the agreement. Section 9(4) of the 1974 Act provides that no item entering into the total charge for credit is to be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment. The amount of credit was stated to be £13,108.05. If the MIF had been included in the amount of credit, it would have been £14,549.94. The Claimant sought a declaration under Section 142(1) of the 1974 Act that the Defendant was not entitled to enforce the agreement, on the ground that it did not contain a correct statement of the amount of credit as required by Section 6l(l)(a) of the 1974 Act and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, with the result that the agreement was altogether unenforceable under Section 127(3). He also sought an order that the entry relating to the charge be removed from HM Land Registry, pursuant to Section 106© of the 1974 Act. It was not in dispute that, if the MIF was payable under a contract of insurance, it would have fallen outside the total charge for credit, as defined by regulation 4 of the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and would have formed part of the credit, since all insurance premiums other than those falling within regulation 4© are excluded from the total charge for credit by regulation 5(1 )(i). The Claimant maintained that the MIF was an insurance premium, in reliance upon Prudential Insurance v IRC [1904] 2 KB 659. Held: That the amount of the credit was correctly stated, as the MIF was not payable under a contract of insurance (paragraph 19). Prudential Insurance v IRC did not provide an exhaustive definition of insurance (paragraphs 11 and 12). If the Prudential Insurance v IRC test were to be applied, the MIF would not satisfy the criteria because the Claimant had bought a financial package and not the right to receive a benefit on the happening of a future contingency (paragraph 18). Support can be found in Humberclyde Finance v Thompson [1997] CCLR 23, where the concession that a waiver was not insurance was impliedly approved by Brooke LJ (paragraphs 13 and 14). The MIF was analogous to collision damage waiver and the FSA's analysis that such a waiver was not insurance appeared correct and applicable (paragraph 18). To treat the MIF as an item falling within Page 4 1 now read this: Mortgage Indemnity Charge (sometimes referred to as a High Percentage Lending Fee) For high Loan to Value (LTV) mortgages ie. where the loan is not much less than the value of the property, it is common practice for the lender to take out a form of ‘insurance’ to protect against some or all of the losses incurred if the property needs to be taken into possession because of serious arrears. It is common practice for lenders to pass this charge on to the borrower. Depending on the amount of loan and the LTV the Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee charge can be a significant cost eg. a £47,500 mortgage on a purchase price/valuation of £50,000 would result in a £750 charge on a typical MIG charge of 7.5% on a normal lending limit of 75% loan to value. Most lenders have a different name for this charge ie. it may not appear on the mortgage Offer as Mortgage Indemnity Charge or High Percentage Lending Fee. There are some important facts to understand about the mortgage indemnity charge. It acts as a form of insurance for the lender not the borrower. This means that the lender can claim part or all of its ‘losses’ incurred repossessing the property from the insurance company providing the MIG cover. Note that even after repossession the former borrower will remain liable for any sums owing (shortfall between selling price and mortgage outstanding plus arrears, lenders legal costs and any other charges applied to the mortgage) and can be pursued by the insurance company for payment at a subsequent date. [TOP]

anybody in scotland please read this thread.

ok i'm talkin to my self. well any way I looked on a gov.co web site consumers act bla bla. it explains the act. further to your chat the other nite - fees are added to charge for credit no interest added, but spread over time of loan. I am a part quailified accountant, got into a bad situation when I split from my hubby, was left with a lot of debt.

Hi folks not been on for a while. heres my update. I have now got someone checking over my complaints and I have got a refund for unlawfull charges;) but still getting knowwhere with fees etc. I wrote to them with all the calculations showing that they have charged interest on both fees then added them to charge for total credit, was told that was a load of rubbish and was then quoted some case that they won about the same complaint. I also asked them why I was charged a mortgage indemnity fee on a £12,000 loan when I thought this only applied to mortgage loans over 80% of the property value, was told all the aggreements from that time had them:!: I am starting to loose my cool now:mad: I have to say I have found this site so helpfull and its good to see everyone fighting back. just want to add I got £4998 bank charges refunded to me 2 years ago:lol:

cheers for your support. if and when i get the result I want i will let everyone know. all i can say for now is that we are dealing with a bunch of loan sharks:eek:

not been on for a couple of weeks, but wanted to give you an update. I sent off my letter and was contacted saying someone was dealing with it, I also got a friend who deals with financial contracts to look over my aggreement, dont want to say to much as I have since sent another letter to Welcome, but lets just say that things arent quite right and dont add up:!: !!!!!!!! and I intend to fight this until I get a satisfactory outcome.

the address i was given by them on friday is diff fron the one you gave - is this a correct address - bishops house, abbeyfield road, lenton, nottingham ng7 2sz- thats where i sent recorded letter?????????? I will scan agreement at work tomorrow on to web site - dont have scanner here.

I took out a secured loan with welcome 3.5 years ago. got a strange call on my moby a few months back telling me to check my agreement?? after fone calls letters etc i finally got a copy. to my suprise insurences i know for defo i didnt sign for were added on and also after checking have noticed they are charging me interest on my accept fee and indem fee. previous to this i cancelled my dd and waited - got the call and i said ive waited weeks for a copy of my agreement, the guy was far**ng smarty's on the other end of the phone, told me he couldnt deal with any complaints, but to write to head office. it was a 12grand loan but i am paying back nearly 4 times that. should i be charged interest on accept fees and mortgage fees. I have wrote a letter asking them for explanation within 14 days. where do i go from here:?:

cheers for that

ok thought i was on a site that gave me advice on my agreement. should i be paying interest on my accept fee and mortgage endem, i think not, but i am.

not sure how to ?????????????

can anybody answer my question re my welcome aggreement. i am not to sure how this forum works, but i have read through all the pages, or should i just get an indepentant financial advisor to look at ny aggreement. welcome finance have made my life hell, turning up at my door demanding money then denying they got the money. god knows where the cash went?????????????????