Jump to content

Major Player

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Major Player

  1. tried to reply but says your inbox is full, lucky you!
  2. Can you speak to the land registry and get them to tell you what sort of charge it is that they have registered on your property? They may not even be entitled to repossess, also as Beyond says, they will have to ask permission from the main mortgage company who will be paid off first and as Welcome are not flush with cash, may just be trying to call your bluff
  3. Hi Cityred, did you send your complaint recorded and have proof of delivery? Even if not, is it 8 weeks since their acknowledgement? If so you can go straight to the ombudsman now with your complaint as it has not been resolved in the correct timescale. Financial Ombudsman Service The form you need should be here our complaints procedure and how to complain Or you can email or phone the FOS too, for your reference Welcome would have been sent the following letter, as they are not playing ball you should expect some speedy resolution and another nail in the Welcome coffin! http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/ppi-CWletterB.pdf
  4. Lets be frank here, LLoyds have cancelled the sale of PPI for commercial reasons more than customer pressure. Martin Lewis has done a fantastic job in opening up peoples eyes to the fact that they may have been taken advantage of over the purchase of unecessary PPI but this is not the reason for them pulling it. There have been many missold cases but the black and white of it is that with claims on PPI/ASU being the highest that they have ever been given the state of the country they can only see PPI being unprofitable due to the increased sales process regulation and the increased likelyhood of a claim being made - effectively its more expensive to sell with more of a chance of a claim being made. The misselling aspect is big but in reality the profits that were made from those products have been made and taken already, the losses are made when the claims are paid back (i.e. Now) and we know who has to foot the bill for this - us! Its not necessarily a good thing as with a major provider out of the marketplace, the likelyhood of increased premiums for those who legitimately would benefit from this type of policy will increase and availability will decrease (As per personal lending impact at present).
  5. The deferment issue is something that I have raised before on here, basically trying to get the FSA to admit this is account fraud and thus could possibly mean that the agreement is null and void, they advise that they are investigating the company and cannot therefore make a comment, however if individuals who were effected were to raise a formal complaint and escalate to the FOS then they would have to answer on a case by case basis. Bebobebo, the board is a useful source of information as you see many employees and ex employees on there giving the tricks of the trade out. I would say that postgg is partially correct, however, instructions for deferments came from below board level, the board members are the figure heads as they let this happen on their watch and so have had to take the fall for it but those who were responsible for the dodgy dealings are by and large still in the employ of Cattles and still thinking of dodgy ruses to make the figures of the shambolic operation look better. Brassed off, the criminal cases are pending the FSA investigation outcome, however I know that at least two of the 6 fired directors have been successful in suing Cattles for wrongful dismissal and were settled off prior to a tribunal so perhaps the legal aspect will come down to whether or not shareholders can succeed in a class action for being mislead in regards to share issues etc.
  6. If they had the proof pf signing they would have probably responded by now, here is where the fun starts as they will come up with some cock and bull story for you! Do you know if they have a charge on your property? If a loan is in a single name, then it is only the named person that can be pursued for the debt, even if secured on a joint property (They effectively can only pursue the equity that their client has in the property) so if they have asked you for payment etc they are breaking the law and possibly Data protection requirements too. I ask about the charge because they could either be doing a smoke an mirrors trick to try and make it look like they are holding your property to ransom when in fact they can't do anything as they have no security OR if they have a signed document that you did not sign, it could be a case that your signture has been replicated and as such would need you to contact the police.
  7. I agree that they have not been honourable, PM me details of cases where they have taken possession of a home, I can not go into depth on here but I am correct, I can happily provide you with proof but not on the forum otherwise I won't be able to continue doing work on here. The article states that the prior charge is reposessing not Welcome, Welcome refused to let a privately agreed sale go through due to them insisting that their Unilateral notice is paid off from the proceeds (They said they had a £40k balance and £20k was left from the house sale after all known charges were to be settled). Because Welcome refused to allow the sale to occur, the client was unable to pay her prior charges and the first mortgage reposessed the house, Welcome could arguabley be held responsible for this by refusing the sale but they did not instigate the repossession, another company did, they let it happen in the knowledge that they would get the surplus repossession proceeds on their falsley held Unilateral notice. This type of thing happened a lot, in fact sales of houses where a lot of the time referred to a special department who rather clinically worked out whether or not they would be better to hold out for a prior charge repossessing or allowing the client to sell their home - like I said before not necessarily fair but when were Welcome ever deemed to be fair?! Remember too this article whilst enlightening is also heavy on bias, whilst I don't doubt that the lady in question has acted honourabley, it goes to show that if you ignore court issued paperwork without fightining it when you have a right to fight you can be put in a worse position. Think about this logically, if Welcome were to repossess a property and were 2nd, 3rd 4th etc in line, they immediately would have to pay off the prior charges, add in £5-£10k in legal costs etc and if they were owed say in the article £40k, the house is only making a £20k profit on prior debts being settled, less the say £5k costs, Welcome would get £15k back on a £40k loan but not guaranteed, if the house sells for less Welcome get less, all others get everything from Welcome so Welcome could repossess a house and get nothing back but shell out hundreds of thousands for the priveledge, they may be stupid but they ain't that stupid! I need to reiterate that you cannot enforce repossession with a Unilateral Notice - Land registry can confirm this, CAB can confirm this, Direct Gov can confirm this too! Jonchris, PM me if you want to discuss this further 8-)
  8. Joncris,Thanks for the reply, I'm sorry to interject but I feel it is important, you may have misread the article as it refers to a Unilateral notice that Welcome refused to remove, repossession was taken by a different lender (Possibly the first mortgage holder) and Welcome basically held that their notice was valid and as such would take surplus proceeds from the sale rather than the client having the money to do with as they wish. It is quoted in the article: "Even the lenders who are seeking repossession from Ms L are appalled that the LR have not removed the charge that Welcome cannot prove" So for other interested parties: (1) You cannot repossess a property using a Unilateral notice as security, it is not legal (A unilateral notice by its very nature is a "One way" notification of an interest). (2) To date Welcome Finance have not repossessed a home despite their empty threats, if you know my history, I am not offering an opinion here, I know this to be true an accurate although they of course do repossess cars and goods etc. If you want to PM me with details I am sure I can address your specific case, more thn willing to help ;-)
  9. To clear up a few misunderstandings and to clarify matters before people get confused with all of this stuff I will state the following in support of Steven here: (1) Welcome Finance can pursue legal action on accounts, however they use external solicitors to do this including Irwin Mitchell, LRC and The Lewis Group (Howard Cohen) - these legal actions include Charging Orders and Attachment of earnings BUT the account remains with Welcome and therefore is owned by Welcome, they can enforce CCJs. (2) The Lewis Group and Welcome are two different companies under one umbrella (Cattles PLC) and are treated as seperate legal entities, BUT there are examples of TLG and Welcome sharing the same office space (In Nottingham for example) due to Cattles cost cutting exercises, however if you have a complaint about your Welcome account you need to complain to Welcome they are still trading and still exist. (3) The pre legal action is not necessarily an empty threat and should be taken seriosuly BUT Milner has a point in that a lot of accounts are threatened with Legal action that for one reason or another (Agreement details, missing etc) cannot be taken any further. What happens is a team of administrators send a bulk load of defaults and letters and then picks through the accounts to see which ones can be taken through the legal process. (4) On accounts where a secured loan has been taken out. there is normally a charge in place as this is part of the process of getting the loan (Signed legal charge) a little information here, Welcome have never repossessed a house and are unlikely ever to as its an expensive process and they have to pay off prior charges. So in a sense Milner has raised some vaild points but it is important to understand that the quoted statement is not entirely accurate even if the sentiment is.
  10. Post spot on, ppi missold, take em to the cleaners. Also if secured loan and property sold, loan is unsecured and should be part of the IVA, as you have said to them, they accept this and get whatever pence in the £ back that Payplan offer or you go bankrupt and they get nothing. They normally try to instigate legal action before an IVA is in place, if yours is already then they can't go through with this, their only recourse would be to attempt to get an attachment of earnings (Or Arrestment if you are in Scotland) but I know that their solicitors will not touch this ase ifyou have already got your IVA in place so the person that you spoke with either knows nothing or is trying to blag a payment from you, either way they are acting against their own policy. You should tell Payplan they have contacted you directly. Choice is yours to go bankrupt or IVA but if you miss a few months IVA payments then payplan may take you doen this route as both aspects end in them being paid first for being administrators or trustees. I know they are marketed as free service but if you check how much of your payment is actually going toward creditors and how much is going to them for administering the IVA you may be surprised, CCCS are a charitable organisation that I know are much more cost effective you may want to look at them. That said Payplan are one of the better ones
  11. casper, write to Welcome, they have not yet gone bust and will give the info you need, Lewis group are part of the same company so they could access the info but they are making things difficult. Get your cca from: The Compliance Department Welcome Finance Mere Way Ruddington Fields Business Park Ruddington Nottingham NG11 6NZ
  12. Agree with Beyond and Turk but you can only complain to either Direct Group who will do nothing and are likely to do this as in their eyes the policy has lapsed or to Welcome who are virtually paying out all PPI missold claims, cannot put a claim in for misselling and for non payout at the same time as the two parties have to speak with each other and will let the other know about claims/complaints. If you have claimed and the claims was turned down to a pre-existing condition then clearly the first part of your complaint is with Welcome who failed to ask sufficient medical questions to determine whether you had any pre medical conditions (However difficult to spot they don't ask anywhere near enough questions), the next part also due to Welcome is that once you claim was rejected, the PPI which is worthless (And poss other insurances too) so should have been cancelled. On the other hand Direct group are notoriousy sneaky and rarely pay out but they have lots of small print to use as a defence and as others have said, you may have a valid complaint against them but in this case I would suggest that you have a greater chance of success against Welcome.
  13. Exactly, that was the reason I asked about the PPI, if you had a pre-existing condition that prevented your PPI from being paid out the (1) This should have been discussed at the point of the loan being taken, if they didn't ask then they missold. (2) If you claimed and the PPi did not pay out then why wasn't it cancelled at that point, I bet it is still in place today so again a failure to Treat Customers Fairly. Welcome are in the firing line from the FSA therefore a claim is moe likely to be successful, especially in the circumstances you have pointed out.
  14. Spot on DX as per usual, its all delay delay delay from Welcome trying to squeeze as much money outas they ultimately know that firstly they will have to pay out a lot of money and secondly they are on their last legs, if you miss payment it plays into their hands.
  15. Wilko, did you take out PPI on the loan? If so, firstly you should have been advised to claim on it - they failed TCF on this, secondly if they did not encourage you to claim then clearly it was missold - let me know as I will help
  16. Hi alluphill, Just to answer; (1) You can have a secured loan against a jointly owned property in a single name BUT the joint proprieter has to sign the Legal charge document to agree to this - did you get a legal charge document with your SAR as I can't open attachment? If so was it signd by you? If not then it should not be secured. Remaining points are fair comment but I think Welcome will bat this back so be prepared for a long discussion that will probably end up with the fos/fsa,
  17. Maka, This looks like a case of either misquoted interest rates (Common for Welcome to set up payments for amounts that in fact are not in line with full repayment of the debt) or skullduggery in the form of hidden charges etc. You can go for the cca angle or go straight for the jugular and send the following formal complaint letter to the complaince department in Nottingham (Ruddington Fields, Mere Way Nottingham NG11 6NZ) BTW did you have PPI on the loan? Dear Sir/Madam Formal Complaint regarding agreement number xxxxxxxx I am writing to you in relation to the above mentioned account with a formal complaint, please follow your advertised complaints procedure. I am extremely concerned to see that whilst I was expecting the final payment on my loan of £77.62 to fully clear my debt, the latest statement advises that I have still got approximately £980 outstanding. I believe this to be erroneous as I am up to date with my payments. Please confirm by return and in writing that the final payment of £77.62 will full satisfy the debt and my credit report will be amended accordingly. Please also address other serious areas of concern for me, firstly how capitalisation (Your term for interest) is being calculated and applied on a monthly basis which is clearly detrimental to the clearance of the debt as a whole when my credit agreement for the loan of £1575 states that after 36 months of paying £77.62 (£2794.32 total) my debt will be cleared. My second additional query is relating to the Consumer Credit Act 2006 specifically in relation to the Provision of Statements. As I you are aware, follwoing the introduction and gradual implementation of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, I should have been provided with a statement of account no later than 1 October 2009. I say this because from 1 October 2008, creditors will be required by section 77(a) of the 1974 Act, to provide debtors with annual statements in relation to regulated agreements for fixed-sum credit, such as loans and hire purchase. For agreements made on or after 1 October 2008, the first statement must be given within a period of one year beginning on the day after the day the agreement is made. For pre-existing agreements, the first statement must be given within one year from 1 October 2008. Thereafter the creditor must give the debtor further statements at intervals of not more than one year, until there are no sums which are or may become payable under the agreement. Content of Statements The 2007 Regulations specify the information to be included in statements for fixed-sum credit agreements. In particular: · The duration of the agreement and the amount of credit provided. · The rate or rates of interest applicable, together with - the period during which each rate applied - if applicable, the element of the credit to which it applied · The opening balance at the beginning of the period to which the statement relates · The amount and date of any payment to the account during the period · The amount and date of any interest or other charges falling due during the period · The amount and date of any other movement in the account during the period · The closing balance at the end of the period. Certain prescribed forms of wording must also be included. These relate to: · The consequences of paying less than the agreed sum · Sources of help or advice if the debtor is having difficulties making payments · The right to settle the agreement early · The right to terminate a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement · Dispute resolution and complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (fos). Breach of the Act or Regulations Clearly the most recent and only statement dated 20th May 2010 demonstrates that Welcome Finance failed to comply with all the statutory requirements as detailed above. Therefore as the act states, if a creditor does not give the debtor an annual statement in respect of a fixed-sum credit agreement when he is required to do so, then he is not entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance. In addition, the debtor is not liable to pay any interest calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance In addition, the OFT and Local Authority Trading Standards Services have powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to take enforcement action where there is a breach of legislation which harms the collective interests of consumers. Enforcement action may also be taken where appropriate under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.Breach of the requirements may also reflect on fitness to hold a consumer credit licence under the credit licensing regime. Thus, I conclude that from 1 October 2009 until May 20th 2010 it is clear that Welcome Finance failed to provide a statement of account that is fully compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 2006 it is unable to hold me liable for interest calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance. As such capitalisation between these dates which I would dispute the validity of in any case should not have occured and therefore your responsibility is to correct your errors and reimburse the interest levied from 1 October 2008 until 20th May 2010. In conclusion I have three clear issues, all of which I would like to be fully resolved as quickly as possible. The most expedient resolution, and generous on my behalf, is to allow next months payment to be the final payment and my loan to be showed as fully up to date and paid off. Otherwise I will be happy to receive a breakdown of all charges and interest levied from 1/1/08 until 20/5/10 and an accompanying cheque for the invalid interest levied against me. I should point out that should I remain unsatisifed by your response, I will have no option but to contact the FOS, FSA and OFT to seek resolution and further compensationary action against your company, it is therefore in your interest I would suggest to allow sleeping dogs to lie and accept the June payment as the full and final settlement of the loan. Yours Sincerely
  18. Am here Ricecake if you want to PM or post on here
  19. Hi Ricecake, hopefully you have had some movement, to let you know and relevant readers, the people in compliance who were originally told that they were being made redundant have been given a stay of execution now but the FOS have strongly suggested that the cases are found in favour of clients before getting to them as they will levy higher charges on WFS - remember though that timescales are important and any failure to meet them needs to be adequately compensated.
  20. Post - another nail hit on the head - looks like clear account manipulation, WFS appear to even be ripping off their corporate customers
  21. Canteen, you may want to check out going a bot more for the jugular, the rewrite is not favourable as has been advised they get to take interest from you for potentially longer - hence profit! I would argue that as you were missold PPI AND when you had a legitimate claim (Redundant/out of work) they failed to encourage you to claim they firstly confirmed that they missold the PPI but secondly put you at a disadvantage by trying to collect from you in that period when the PPI should have covered your payments. I would suggest that you ask for not only a full refund of the PPI, also for the missed payments when a claim would have been valid AND for interest to be refunded as well as charges and any payments that have been made by you too - I would think that to offer you a zero interest rate from now on would also be a fair ask, they are trying to cover the cracks of poor advice and come out of it smelling like roses - don't let them!
  22. http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg029.pdf Number 8 - different in regard to refinance - no new charge necessary as technically the debt secured originaly still exists, it has been rolled over into a new one - its a get out clause that Welcome use and have won in court with in the past.
  23. Hi Ricecake, generally speaking the security or charge can remain in place if you refinance the original agreement, its only if you were to settle a loan fully and thensay a month later take out a new loan that they would need to register a charge again and remove the old one. Ian correct in that they use Experian for credit scoring but it is a two way process they update files via experian too.
×
×
  • Create New...