The banks can't collect. They are not the creditor, as far as Welcome's customers are concerned. The only way that could happen is if Cattles were to assign the debts under the Law of Property Act. But would YOU want to take control of collection? Securitization is impossible for obvious reasons.

Challenge the agreement, since the agreement doesn't stand up due to the inclusion of mis-sold PPI. You WILL need to justify exactly why the PPI was mis-sold. I doubt that their offer will constitute an admission that they mis-sold you PPI. Counter claim for the PPI, PLUS compound interest at their contractual rate. In restitution mind. Not compensation.

Write to tell them to remove the default with a Section 10 notice. Then complain to the ICO when they refuse. You need to act now, as if you wait too long after discovery, you will not be able to raise this with the FOS. You may not be able to anyway, owing to the dates involved, but what the heck; give it a go. If they still refuse, you may need to take them to court. But since you have your solicitor as witness, it might make sense to pay a few quid to ask him to write a strongly worded letter telling them to stop messing about, and accept that they are wrong. I wouldn't put it past someone at Welcome to have trousered the payment, and is making payments each month on your behalf. Anything is possible with this lot. A SAR would answer that question, as it will show where the payments are coming from. And lets face it... if you were still liable, they SHOULD be sending you an annual statement.

Even now, some of them are dreaming on the boards. WAKE UP, YE DOZY BUNCH OF MUPPETS!!!

I guess they'll collect what they can for as long as they can, then sell on the rest for 1p in the pound. IF they can find a mug to buy, that is.

It can be done, but only once the entire group of companies goes into administration. hehehe

Well, Gail from the Peterhead branch decided today might be a good time to phone me and remind me that I haven't made a payment for nearly 3 months now. At my request, they did manage to get compliance to phone me. Jonathan: "If you sign the new agreement, we can get this sorted out now." Me: "Unless you agree to repay me PPI on ALL my loans, I'm signing nothing." J: "We won't be paying anything on loans you had mor ethan 6 years ago." Me: "You can't hide behind the Limitations Act J. It's all in my last letter." J: "Why do you think the Limitations Act applies to everybody except you." Me: "It DOES apply to me. And Section 32 applies in your case." J: "You are obliged to repay your current loan. Otherwise it will reflect badly on your credit file." Me: "If I had a squeaky clean credit record, do you really think I'd have used Welcome for a loan? Get real." J: "Well, we don't have to abide by the decision of an adjudicator from the FOS." Me: "See you in court then, where I'll be countersuing for mis-sold PPI on every loan, plus compound interest at your contractual rate." CLICK!!! RING, RING!!! Me: "Hello Gail, compliance were on the phone and won't budge." G: "OK, so long as you realise I'll have to ring every month to keep head office happy." Me: "Why would you want to keep them happy? Welcome is being run down, so I suggest you get down the job centre to beat the rush." G: "HAHA. So long as we're one of the last to close." Me: "I wouldn't bank on it. I think collections will be taken over completely by Nottingham in the not too distant future. Do yourself a favour and get to the head of the queue so you're ready when the P45's hit the mat."

Bear in mind that if it IS May 2007, 2006 amendments kick in, and you cannot then rely on S127(3) of the CCA.

Eh???? WTF???? What's with the orange shoite? Is there an automatic word changer editing posts? Or a virus or what?

I see a few Welcome victims appearing on the other sites. Well, MSE always had a smattering, but some on Legal seagulls now too.

Too many of you have made the same mistake of misinterpreting the relevant section of the CCA. You CANNOT be held to be in default of, for instance S78, where you cannot supply a copy of an agreement because it does not exist. IF ANY was inserted to clarify that the recipient of a CCA request would not be in default of that request under that very circumstance. Otherwise, prior to the 2006 amendments, you would then be saying that failure to produce an agreement after the prescribed term, EVEN WHERE THERE NEVER WAS AN AGREEMENT, means the creditor would have committed a statutory offence. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm afraid that failure to understand that and, either willfully or in ignorance, choose to interpret that section of the Act as meaning that No Agreement = Creditor in Default of Request, is quite clearly erroneous. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that a creditor MUST produce something in response to a request, where there IS nothing to produce. Agreed, far too many supply worthless application forms or non compliant agreements and call them Regulated Agreements. But that in itself does NOT mean that they have failed in their duty under the relevant section. It simply means that they have failed to produce something which does, in fact, not exist. As for someone's contention that I should apologise for other comments, I say this: If you find yourself in court faced with a barrage of questions as to why you think you are right, and the creditor is wrong, you are going to look pretty silly if you haven't understood what people have been telling you, and you fall apart. So, no. I make no apology.

Here's the latest news on the Cattles front. From the online edition of Credit Today...

No, no, no, no, NO!!!! Note the use of those two little words, IF ANY. If there is NO agreement, it is impossible for them to magic one up (although many have tried LOL), and so it is unreasonable to say they are in default of the request. BUT. If they do not supply an agreement because one does not exist, or is otherwise non compliant, then S127(3) becomes the defence, as that in itself becomes the reason for their not being allowed to enforce any alleged debt. The danger then is in recent case law, which argues exactly what constitutes enforcement. Are they "enforcing" a debt by continuing to pursue a debt despite there being no compliant agreement? Probably not. But their own industry's codes of conduct should preclude their doing so in any case. Although we all know that they pay scant attention to that in reality. So in all cases, it is important to read AND UNDERSTAND exactly WHY S127(3) is a defence, and to research what effects the 2006 amendments might have on that defence, and why. And to be honest, I consider it vitally important to read and understand the whole of the CCA 1974. Too many people come on here expecting somebody to produce Magic Letters for them that will solve all their problems, without actually bothering to make any attempt whatsoever to glean any understanding of the very laws they are quoting on paper. And that's bloody criminal, IMVHO.

To be honest Emmilou, it is possibly helpful to use their form as it assists the process due to their being able to work their way through their script in a timely fashion. It probably also satisfies their requirements under their own quality control procedures to send the form as a first response. The danger lies in the obvious bias in the questions, so that if you reject their offer for whatever reason, they have a way to fight back using your answers against you. So if you just want the claim to sail through with no problems, you're probably OK to use the form. But it really is no hardship to send your own response in lieu and removes the, admittedly tiny, risk of them getting difficult further down the road. After all, your initial letter contained the basis of your claim, so it has all they need to know. And for that reason I cannot recommend using their questionnaire.

Don't bother sending the requests to your local office. Go direct to compliance... Compliance Department Welcome Finance Mere Way Ruddington Fields Business Park Ruddington Nottingham NG11 6NZ

A standstill deal hardly addresses the real issues though, does it? Yes, they are collecting some debt at the moment. But what happens when that dries up? And is the money coming in just now even enough to cover their continuing operating costs? There is nothing available for new lending. Although they still seem to be operating their Shopacheck brand, I don't see that as being their saviour. No lending to new clients, Welcome Car credit long since defunct, and customers becoming increasingly beligerant and unwilling/unable to repay their commitments. No, I think Cattles days are all but numbered.

I WOULD have had. If I accepted their first offer. But since they tried the Limitations Act shoite regarding older agreements, I got all shouty and angry. Having said that, I refused their kind offer of using their form requesting further info. I merely told them that all the info they needed was in my original letter of complaint.

You're having a pop because they keep a record of your bank details????? I think you'll find that every company you have dealings with that require your bank details, will have them on record. They are hardly likely to be just lying around for everybody to see. I cannot understand your concern. Concentrate on the issues that matter.

Try this for inspiration... RICHARD DURKIN v. DGS RETAIL LIMITED+HFC BANK PLC, 26 March 2008, Sheriff J K Tierney

If all they can supply is an application form, then they HAVE complied. They should just admit defeat tho.

Not yet he hasn't according to this website. Uncle Ken has a dig at Morgans : Cabot Financial Blog

Sorry to butt in late. But they say they don't need to issue a default notice, unless an earlier repayment of a sum is required. So what exactly are they doing taking you to court if it isn't to forrce you to repay the whole amount? And if the OC didn't demand that you either repaid it all, or were given 14 days to remedy whetever it was you did to incurr their wrath, then surely tyou cannot now be asked to UNFAIRLY repay them anything? Although reading more what you have written, it seems that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on anyway since they don't appear to have an agreement, and so you would be bulletproof cos section 127 para 3 of the CCA says a judge can't enforce a debt without one. I'm paraphrasing obviously, but that's the gist of it. I would have a wee read and start to feel all smug if I were you.

CLOSE THIS THREAD NOW!!! I would far rather see Angry Cat eat a hat, than watch Anne and Ken get all sweaty together. Oh, cross QUESTIONING Mr Maynard. Sorry, I thought you said... oh, never mind.

Been there, got the t-shirt, phoned them back and told them I'm waiting for them to take me to court where I'll be counter claiming for shed loads of PPI plus compounded interest, so no point in continuing the conversation. They obviously don't have an answer to that in their script, as I haven't been contacted now in over a month.

I'll try to find the link Brent. My filing system has gone to pot when my hard drive fried.