Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well you could say that you have pictures where the signs were not on the wall where you parked so would require strict proof of when they were erected . But in any case it was dark so even if a sign was there you didn't see as it was not illuminated. Little point in not having signs that can be seen at night though it obviously makes it easier to issue PCNs and pursue motorists claiming they have breached non contractual contracts whilst breaching those same motorist's GDPR.
    • It fizzled out, they kept delaying the complaints process. In the end I believe they stopped charging me for a bunch of services, unsure if it was deliberate or a mistake so I stopped bringing it up. Ultimately we bought a house and moved out.
    • There are so many factors, and local elections are often far more about local issues and people, but the one previously general rule in a general election are that the hard core Tories vote Tory and hard core Labour voters vote labour   Gaza seems to have dulled both the muslim and Jewish labour votes more than the Tories - and I can see why - but do the muslim voters really think that the Tories will do ANYTHING other than talk and then do whatever the Americans say - and thats support Israel whatever they do first and foremost in real terms? Reform has unquestionably affected the Tory local vote - so should affect the GE vote a bit more, but has largely been factored in - reform isnt new in any way - its all Brexitish although there seem to be far more ex 'conservative' core reform/ukip/brexitish voters than ex 'labour' core voters - about 6-8% of the national vote in a GE seems to me. A little up on prior brexitish/faragits scores But the large swathes of center ground voters who decide who wins the election seem to have utterly deserted the Tories in their millions - although they have gone to labour, libdems and greens - and many real conservatives are in limbo despite Sunak being naturally more a thatcherite than most - his party currently seems far less so. Johnson promised much, and many were taken in, just as people (inc me) made that mistake with Farage in the early days - but we now know that they are self serving liars who can't be trusted with anything - although I still think it likely The Liar will be back - but most likely after the GE (60/40) Starmer is lacking in charisma and presence, but others in his cabinet should shine. But Corbynistas could still cause trouble - another group that seem happy to drag everything down if they think it suites   Johnson perhaps could reunite some of the Tory party - but he seems to have numerous criminal and political convistions sitting in the background should he try Lying about giving preference to dogs in the Afghan evacuations - and lying about it Unlawfully proroguing parliament embezzlement re funds and spending (eg flat referb) .. repeatedly Taking jobs before he should after being booted - should lose his PM pension and rights over that IMO the list goes on ad nauseam
    • Hi I am negotiating with my ex (commercial) landlord's solicitor for a debt I owe for rent. This has been going on for a little while and I expect they may go ahead with the court action they threaten. I wanted to ask however, In the event this action goes ahead, I think will have a response pack sent to me from the court, along with the claim. Google tells me that a section of this response pack is a 'Admit the claim and ask for time to pay'. Would this time to pay, if accepted also mean a CCJ registered against me? Thanks
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
  • 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


iconoclash
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5465 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

Hi - any advice pls -

 

 

my friend has fallen behind with her payments and

Ive suggested she has a claim against this company anyway so have drafted some letters for her.

 

 

She has now received a response but I'm not at all sure they are correct.

 

 

In essence its a secured loan of £10k with an Acceptance Fee of £215, a mortg. indemnity Fee of £1100,

and optional PPI of £2513.55, two further insurances of £380 and £125 respectively, totalling £14333.55.

 

 

All the loan details are in one column followed at bottom by APR of 26.9 over 84 months.

It is also variable but has never been varied by WF.

 

 

I think it is crap but they say its fine as it was set up in 2002 and as its variable they dont have to give a total charge for credit.

They say the Arrangement fee is not a document fee.

They say the term credit need not be used and refer to sch. 6 para 1 of the CCA Regs.

and that Ocwen Hughes case confirms this.

 

 

They also say that Wilson First County Trust refers to totals within a total charge for credit

and since there isnt any on this document then it cannot apply either

and in conclusion the contract stands. ????????????

 

 

any knowledgeable people pls let me know if this is really a heap of **** or what:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there - when she first spoke about this I seem to recall that she'd spoken on the phone and then had to go to an office to sign the papers - but - I notice on her agreement that it refers to a "further advance" , so perhaps this was rolling up a previous loan?? will try to get hold of her to confirm. Does this mean that it is linked? or that there should be full details of paying off previous loan with this one etc ?? - sorry, only guessing here at present - will come back soonest - many thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - apparently this was set up by phone and post. The pre-contract document was changed at final stage by them so that the first named party became the wife not the husband (partner) no further advance, just a first loan, they said it was changed because of the man's employment and/or possibly to do with his not being a british citizen, but, nothing ever seen by them re securing on property either. thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi - my friend is challenging her WF secured loan agreement with my help and Im certain that it does not comply - after sending all the letters and asking them to deal in writing only today there was a new turn of events.

A man arrived at her door and stated that WF are offering a 50% discount on balances if they pay it off - they felt that she owed about £3k and that her claim was roughly the same so would she kindly agree to call it quits.! Yeah sure, after theyve paid over 30,000 pounds to them for a 10k loan and three mis-sold insurances and a MIG and an arrangement fee!! and then theres the interest.... dont think its gonna be that easy mate

Link to post
Share on other sites

URGENT ******SERIOUS****

 

Hi - re WF weve had a letter back and its threatening.

In our last letter we talked about the FSA fining them but might have got that wrong - I thought I read somewhere that theyd been fined but now Im looking at this thing dated 12 March 2009 online about Cattles and WF FD Peter Miller, John Blake: managing director, and Mick Belcher operations director, being suspended. Right.

 

In Welcomes letter they say:

 

"In your letter you say 'blah'...... We can advise you that this is not the case further we would advise you that we shall be watching your activity very carefully in the future, and, should we suspect that any dissemination of such false and potentially damaging accusations has been carried out by yourselves, such activity will be severely dealt with. Please take this notice very seriously. In conclusion we assert that there is no breach of the consumer credit act and we do not need a declaration from any court to maintain the enforceability of this agreement......"

THIS IS A THREAT ISNT IT??

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is desperate from welcome

 

yes they were suspended for irregualities

 

who sent that letter

 

was it from compliance

 

 

can you post the letter and the original that you sent

 

they must be desperate

 

why are you challenging the agreement

 

does it lack perscribed terms etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - yes we are challenging this agreement on the grounds that the total is mis-stated as it includes everthing with interest and has not been separated out, also the three insurances were mis-sold, and since then despite them having been paid for, WF now say the two of them were cancelled by the customer a long time ago. ?! This is a 7 year contract made in 2002. Im thinking that the 2000 Regs apply. They were told to make all contact in writing but have been phoning and sent a rep round to the house and that rep said they were offering this 50% off thing, as previously mentioned, whilst this new letter was winging its way to us from Christopher Palmer, Legal Compliance Officer. So - as they are "watching all activity very closely" we can presume they are reading CAG and can provide some clarification. Not likely - this is their FINAL RESPONSE - quote - so in other words they are just going to ignore us now unless we go to court. Also - they swapped the first and second applicant names in between pre-contract and final contract leaving one party not covered. Cant see to sort out this image so you can see it properly??

WF1.jpg

Edited by iconoclash
additional text
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think mr palmer should come out of his office and get into the real world

 

def need a new suite though

 

the agreement is to small

 

can you repost using photo bucket, google it

 

use the upload link for message boards with out thumbnails

 

 

did it mention final response in the letter

 

can you post the letter

 

pm me it if needed

 

 

mr palmer has not been having much luck in court as late

 

shame

 

 

have you done an sar

 

by the way

 

typical hot air from nottingham

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...