Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Welcome Finance secured loan - sold to coast now resale to swift advances!!


razorc
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 368 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ding ding

 

round one over

 

welcome have pulled your account from lewis

no doubt its down to that letter we sent

 

 

lewis have sent the account back to welcome:D:D:D:D

lewis will no longer have any contact with you:-D:-D:-D:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi post, I dont know if this loan is still secured but in my experience it should not be. If the loan agreement is not executed properly then the security instrument is not properly executed either and must be returned immediately. Section 105 says that a security instrument can only be properly executed on a properly executed loan agreement. If not then section 106 ineffective securities takes effect. The agreement in question is not properly executed, section 61 CCA1974 I think. I challenged WF and this argument worked for me. Worth considering when a home is at stake. In this case of a returned security would the MIF not then stand anyway and right from the start of the agreement? I am challenging this point right now and it would be useful to know if my theory is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi post, I dont know if this loan is still secured but in my experience it should not be. If the loan agreement is not executed properly then the security instrument is not properly executed either and must be returned immediately. Section 105 says that a security instrument can only be properly executed on a properly executed loan agreement. If not then section 106 ineffective securities takes effect. The agreement in question is not properly executed, section 61 CCA1974 I think. I challenged WF and this argument worked for me. Worth considering when a home is at stake. In this case of a returned security would the MIF not then stand anyway and right from the start of the agreement? I am challenging this point right now and it would be useful to know if my theory is correct.

 

is this the road we going then postggj lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Postggj , welcome still have'nt received the letter I posted on the 30 Dec , on the royalmail tracking it states

 

Item xxxxxxxxxxxGB was posted at xxxxxxxxxx on 30/12/09 and is being progressed through our network for delivery

 

Probs with the weather conditions holding back alot of mail being sent, you think I should post another letter to them or hold fire till they receive the letter sent on 30 dec , was thinking it might be lost in post now and welcome not gonna receive it.

Edited by razorc
added more
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Razor,

I would hang fire for another week, as it is most likely the weather has played a huge part in it, royal mail will be playing catchup for a while, plus businesses have either closed, or been running on limited resources

ANYBODY WHO NEEDS INFO ON YOUR LEHMANS MORTGAGE

either SPML/PML/LMC/SPPL; the following are DIRECT tel#s,

of the investigating & prosecuting organisations: DONOT say you are from CAG-only directly affected or a concerned citizen.

 

1. Companies House: Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

2. CH : Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia(MD) for SPML/PML) @ 02920 380 643

3. CH : Mark Youde(accounts compliance) @ 02920 380 955

 

4. Companies Investigation Branch(CIB) : Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108

(part of the Insolvency Service) investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

5. CIB : Jeremy Pilcher('unofficial'-consumer/company lawyer) : @ 0207 637 6231

__________________

File YOUR 'Companies Investigation Branch'- CIB complaint online NOW!!!!

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/complaintformcib.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to seeing what response you get.

Keep us updated please.

 

Regards

-

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, my comments are based on information learnt or

obtained and from my own experiences.

-

Case 1 - C L Finance - Court Case 'Stayed' :-). Stay Lifted - N149 AQ Received & Filed. Case Struck Out :grin:

-

Case 2 - C L Finance - Defence Filed. N150 AQ Received & Filed. Case 'Settled by Consent' :)

-

Case 3 - EOS Solutions - No Agreement - Account Closed ~£3500. :grin:

-

Advice & opinions offered freely but informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment and seek advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well the letter arrive today and what a lot of yite they wrote me back gonna post it up soon for anyone to have a look at.

 

scanning soon

 

Hello all , heres the link to the letter I received today from welcome , hope postggj is online any help what to do next as its a load of balls this letter

 

they say read the t & c's , and they have included a copy of our agreement with the t & c's attached to it.

 

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww288/razorc/Welcomereponseletterreceived15jan10.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me Thinks Another Special Letter Is On The Cards

 

Do You Want Me To Do One

 

THEY DONT MENTION WHAT PART OF THE T&C

 

HAVE YOU SEEN ANY MENTION ON MIF

 

THEY CAN PUT WHAT THEY WANT IN THE T&C

 

DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL

 

CRETINS

Link to post
Share on other sites

evening postggj ,

 

ye a know they didnt really answer anything to it

so there blaming the cra's for calling it a mortgage lol , an no mention of the MIF

 

any ideas what to do next , ano your a bissy man helping everybody here with welscum

Link to post
Share on other sites

on the t&c's it reads

 

mortgage indemnity fee

 

the mortgage indemnity fee shall be charged to you by being included in the total amount of loan.

 

in return for payment of this fee,

we agree that,

In the event that it is necessary for us to enforce the security,

and the value of the secured property upon sale is insufficient to cover all sums then due by you to us under this agreement, we shall not pursue you for such shortfall

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...