hmm wouldnt it be nice if we could say we have sold the account on to someone else as well...heh heh

yeah stick "without prejudice" on it lol the problem with welcome is that they cant tell when you are playing them at their own game. I mean the dodgy default notices are a big joke as regular caggers will testify that welcome employees have been on this forum more times than they can count and they must have read the bits about correct default notices...yet they still dont get it right!! bunch of muppets the lot of them so screw em and wind em up until you get the desired action from them...ie...they take your car illegally then fight to get a hell of a lot of money from them.

oh and another thing. they havent allowed 14 days including 2 days for post (i think its 2 days) as they issued the notice on the 15th June and then terminated on the 29th june. its not enough time.

to be fair, if your read the letter about the whereabouts the car is, it doesnt say specifics such as kept over night or is it kept at your home and at what time. what you should do is go to mcdonalds for a meal. write the reply letter there and say that the car is currently at mc'ds at so n so address....blah blah blah. that will show em!!

i regularly check on that board as it is good reading and it seems some people on their have no clue what cattles have been like and are only just finding out, whilst we have known for a while.

get them to correct it.

default notice appears to be dodgy as it does not specify an exact date when the account is supposed to be rectified by. as for the full balance is due, thats a load of balls, If they terminate correctly, you would only be liable for the arrears. Yes they would need a court order to repossess and I assume that it would just be presented to you and they take vehicle away, They cant take it off private property without a court order i believe. the PPI reclaim may cover most of the arrears anyway. Hopefully someone will pop along provide more info for you.

When I got my car from welcome, they offered me the Guardx. they said it was basically a protective coat to the paint that would stop it from chipping for so many years. I turned it down, but they did say they would ring me and fix any chips and scratches within 2-3 weeks of purchase. as you can already guess, this never happened. to my mind, this is a breach of contract, but having done a cca and looking at my paperwork, the bit that says im happy with the vehicle has no mention about the call back to fix the chips etc..therefore what they tell you is not consistent with paperwork. Same goes for the £250 cashback promise at the time. I agreed verbally that a cheque would be sent to me, but the paperwork says they would knock it off the total purchase price...the problem is, i didnt even know what the actual purchase price was as it was always done on a set payment per month over 48 months. the whole company is a con and the sooner they go under the better. As regards to my own situation, im still waiting on a refund of the insurances and a new agreement to sign and that was 4 months ago. my attitude now is, "well sue me!!" if they cant honor their side of the agreement and provide a service as normally expected, they are in breach of contract. their agreement says something to that affect so sod em all!!

thats all very well and that was explained to me by them and I accept that. but it still does not make it right the way they apportion it on a daily basis and as a result we and no doubt millions of others have been deprived of tax credits due to how they calculate it. It works for employed people with the same income each month, but for those who change circumstance it does not. Im not disputing the tax credits we have gotten as the annual figures are all correct etc... its difficult to work out and explain and you certainly have to have a grasp of figures to understand what I have put in my previous post. I certainly dont expect many people to see within the figures what I see.

The annual figures are correct as per P60 and my Accounts so im happy with them, but my beef is that they apportion on a daily basis. So in my case our 1st claim was from 3 may 2009. That makes our claim period for 338 days out of 365. they then take the whole tax year income and apportion the income. for example earning £2000 a month for 6 months from 6th april to 30 september = £12000 and then say £5000 from self employment from 1st October to 5 April 2010. Total earning £17000. Now they take the £17000 / 365 x 338 = 15742. Thats the figure they use to work out the claim for our 338 day claim period. but this is incorrect as pay is last day of each month, so I earnt say £2000 on the last day of april, may, june, july, august & Sept. So from 3rd may to 30th Sept I actually earnt in our claim period £2000 x 5 = £10000. now add the £10000 to my self employed earnings of £5000 = total earnings for the claim period of £15000. NOT the £15742 that they have calculated. Hence they have overstated my income for the claim period by £742. Ok its not a great deal, but because of this, we should have been entitled to probably £100 (estimate) more in tax credits. I dont agree that they should take into account the April 09 earnings of £2000 as it has nothing to do with the claim.

The Capitalisation will be for the Correct (debatable) interest payable under the terms of the agreement. The other figures called interest, I would imagine is the interest on the missed payments accumulating over time. No idea about the MIF, but from what I have read on here, it seems that you are correct on the 20k limit. maybe POST could chip in and have a look. He likes this sort of thing. I would defo write to them asking for a refund of the PPI as you have proof of cover under separate policy and if they had gone through the proper procedures they would have asked you if you had PPI cover elsewhere.

interesting phone call with the tax credit people today, apparently if you make a 1st claim part way through the year, they take your whole years income into account and apply it to a daily rate, which in my case is totally wrong As my income for the month of April 09 has nothing to do with our claim as we were not living together at the time. I changed from employed to self employed 6 months into the tax year, but me and the wife moved in together in may 09 and made our first claim together as of then. Ok I know its only a month worth on income for me, but it works out that they have overstated my income by £900 for the period of our claim due to the way they calc it and apply it over the course of the year and not based on actual income at the time. That overstatement could be worth about £200 to us which would help loads. It wrong and unfair, views?

if the agreement becomes voidable due to non disclosure, then what happens to the vehicle and the monies we have paid?

As you were not involved, you can apply to the council to move you for your own safety, but it may take a while. With assistance form the police they can work together to get your moved.

the DWP would not know about a mortgage, as mentioned it would probably be some form of a debt collector and if it is, they have breached so many laws re data protection etc... Have a word with the neighbour and see if they can get some ID or a name and phone number. Perhaps they can play along and say that if they get any information they will call the them but need a phone number. that way you can do some more investigating. If you get a phone number, stick it into google and im sure some details will come up.

Does anyone know the correct method that "the not so useful" people use when they process the tax credit claim form information, ie your income details. My understanding is as follows and will give examples of how I think it works and how I think it is flawed so the calculations are never correct and we never get the correct amount owed to us. this is purely hypothetical and does not take into account income thresholds of the limited of tax credits payable and is purely based on my own situation and all numbers are not real. How I think it works : They take the total earnings per year and average it out over 12 months regardless of changes to circumstances. ie, I'm employed (12 month salary £20000) for the first 6 months, say I earn £10000 but then I go self employed for the last 6 months and notify them accordingly and only earn £5000. Total earnings for year is £15000, but for the the first 6 months I'm only getting tax credits based total annual income of £20000. Therefore based on earnings for the year (£15000) I should get x amount of Tax Credits. So they deduct what has already been paid for the employed 6 months from the total yearly amount and pay the remaining for the self employed 6 months. This seems flawed to me because even though my annual income for the year is £15000 they average the tax credit payment based on this £15000 over 12 months, when in actual real life, this doesn't happen. Why doesnt it? well I shall explain...... For the 1st 6 months I get tax credits based on £20000 a year, All is well because im getting 6 months of tax credits at the correct rate based on my annual salary of £20000. but then I get 6 months based on £15000 per annum averaged over 12 months. The problem is, is that my actual income per year has halved from £20000 a year, down to £10000 (£5000/6 months x 12 months). You would expect my Tax credits to double (for arguments sake) but it wont because they only see that my income for the year is £15000 and therefore has only come down £5000 and not £10000. So they only pay Tax Credits on the £5000 drop in income instead of the £10000 drop in income. So im basically losing out on Tax Credits on another £5000 income drop. I hope you understand all that I may misunderstand how they calculate it, and what I have written above may require someone with a head for figures, but it just does not seem fair how they do it. Please add your comments and thoughts. Thanks.

The capitalisation is their term for "interest" I would challenge the Insurance, PPi, Medicare and also Homecare. You should beb able to claim these back if you did not request them. Im sure someone will chip in with the relevant letters to send to them to claim it all back. This should reduce the balance owed considerably.

can you match the signature on the 1st agreement to the 2nd agreement? ie do they match like for like? if so, looks like they could have lifted it off the old one and photocopied it onto the new one. try putting one over the other and hold up to the light to see. No two signatures are exactly the same so in your case, if they are, then you may have a case against them.

see if you can get more details if they contact you again, like address or see if they are a limited company and get their company number. it will help us do some investigating.

stick the claim in now.

He used to work for yes car credit didnt he?

they are actually trying to sell the company for about £5m to a "charitable organisation" so I have read. Works out about 1p a share and the shareholders are not a happy bunch. They fighting tooth and nail to have them shut down and are looking at a no confidence vote in the current board.

fair play mate

would be interesting if we could find out what offices have closed. I havent heard a thing for over 3 months now about reclaiming my insurance or even a new agreement being sent out. they said my local office was sending one but I have yet to hear a peep out of them. Not even a reply to my letter I sent them to remind them. just as well my account is officially in dispute as no doubt, once an office gets round to it, they will try all sorts on about late payments and charges etc... least I still have the letter agreeing its in dispute and what they are currently doing about it. It offers me a little bit of protection. I currently have no idea what is going on and whether I will hear from them at all or not.

have a read of this re: Mort ind ins. Mortgage indemnity: a borrower's guide basically its insurance to cover their loss if you fail to pay and they have to repossess.