Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • yes they mostly would be enforceable, but that wasnt the point. even if they get a CCJ the very worst they could have done is get a restriction k which is useless to them. doesnt hurt anything. the CCJ would remain on file for 6yrs yes, but then gone same as a DN. the rest k charge does not show at all. and even so, the idea was to get your debts issued a default notice ASAP, them RESUME payments.. the advise is NOT conflicting, just you don't read things properly or understand.  oh well. dx
    • This is the dilemma I had then and still have it. The bit that stopped me was the post 2015 comments about them being enforceable now in most instances which I feel hasn’t been answered unless I am missing something. the bonus I guess is not all credit agreements now will be chasing me so less people chasing me down so to speak. this is the problem as there is conflicting messaging out there it is hard to plan a strategic way forward 
    • In 2017 my wife was given PIP and I finally, officially, became her carer. In 2019 she was reviewed and we were told it would be done by phone to make it easier for her as she has mobility issues and anxiety. The review was very simple, Has anything changed? No, ok, we'll stay as you are then. In 2022 a second review, this time by phone again but with an awkward given at the end for 5 years. Today, we got a new review letter (I know wait lists are bad, but I dont think the wait will take til 2027 for a decision). We're a bit confused because it's a letter, not a phone call as before. The form is just questions that ask "has anything changed" Now, since 2017, nothing has changed except we had our home adapted via disability grant. This was noted in the phone calls. So we should really write that nothing has changed in the last 2 years. The adaptations have been mentioned in both previous phone reviews, but not in writing so I guess we should bring it up. But we feel that they want us to explain everything as if it were a new claim again... And are worried if we miss something in the original claim or the phone calls she will risk losing part of the award (a 2 point swing could be really bad) It does just say "has anything changed?" But in dealing with ESA prior to getting PIP, answering the question asked "has your condition worsened or improved" at a review process with a simple "no, I'm still the same" somehow led to ESA ending and needing appeal. So just want a bit of guidance. How much detail is needed? Is minimal ok? Or should we be blunt with the fact nothing has changed, and bullet point the things she struggles with in each section?   I know the obvious thing is to just explain it all,but over 10 years the sheer amount of times the poor woman has had ESA or PIP stopped/refused just because something was missed out in their report, or they felt it meant a new claim should be made, or that they judged her healthy because we missed a tiny thing in our forms. During COVID it finally seemed like it was all just going to be smooth, especially with the phone reviews and the 5 year reward, but here we are. We just want to make sure we have the least chance to trip ourselves up, but making sure we have what is expected if you get me? I wish I still had a copy of the forms from 2017, because I could just verbatim copy them and add in about the adaptation, but (ironically) we lost our photocopies we kept of them when the house was being adapted
    • might of been better to have got them all defaulted 2yrs ago as we carefully explained before then you'd already be 1/3rd there and your current issue would not be one.    
    • No doubt the hotel will have security cameras on the floor you were staying to confirm or deny the allegation??   The only compensation you will probably get, which will be discretionary as a goodwill gesture, will be a credit voucher for the entire hotel group. Very much doubt anything more than that as you have not substantiated, the hotel committed the transgression 
  • 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 picks another victim


rob20042513
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5031 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 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi All,

 

Background:

 

I took out a car back in June 2008 on Hire purchase, they sold me all the usual insurances even PPI which i did not want, however i managed to cancel all of the insurances within the 30 day period!!! I also argued that the agreement was meant to be 36 months not 48, which they said they have changed. They told me i needed to go into the local branch and resign a new agreement in order for this to be done. So i went back into the branch on the 21/08/08 to sign a new agreement (assuming it was still the Hire purchase agreement) so continued to make payments as normal.

 

My personal loan is finishing on aug09 which i needed to find out the balance and look at charges etc, so i did a Subject access request in order to find out. Everything was fine except the new agreement for my car, it stated 'Regulated by the Consumer credit Act 1974' nothing mentioned about Hire purchase, no termination rights, repossession etc. It just seemed to be a loan agreement!!!!!!!!! Also the agreement states 48 months as well. On my discovery i wrote immediately to Welcome to rectify and they did not respond so i wrote to the Financial Ombudsman and they escalated my case. I have not made any payments for the last two months to welcome as the account is in dispute, Today I have recieved a letter titled 'FINAL RESPONSES' this includes the following:

 

Dear rob20042513,

 

We've recieved your complaint from the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

I understand that you are concerned about the agreements you've signed.

 

Ive reviewed your file and note that you originally took a HP agreement for vehicle xxxxxxx in june 08. With this agreement you purchased insurances, namely payment protection insurance and mechanical breakdown.

 

We recieved your request to cancel these insurances within the first 30 days, therefore we cancelled the original agreement and reebooked without the insurances for the same loan advance and vehicle details.

 

However, after reviewing the loan documents it appears that when we arranged the rebook, we completed documents for a CST agreement. This type of agreement is a loan for a vehicle; however it does not carry any repossession or termination rights.

 

I undertand your concerns about furture request to terminate the agreement would be declined, however on this occassion we are prepared to honour this. If you wish to terminate your agreement, please let me know. You should be aware that as you have only had the agreement in place for 13 months, there would be a significant remaining liability at this time.

 

However, the agreement is noy unenforceable as you've claimed. You signed to accept the terms and conditions of the agreement and you have taken possession of a vehicle for which payments are due.

 

Financial regualtions require me to advise you that this letter is the final response.

 

What do i do next please help!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are criminals, they are not offering anything worth considering as they will take your car, auction it and then chase you for other monies owed. The only reason they have made this offer is to get some much needed cash....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Post,

 

The first page states 'regulated by the consumer credit act 1974' (no mention of Hire purchase) the second page which is page number 2 states early settlement figures and my signatures and theirs still no mention of hire purchase anywhere.

 

What can i do now as they believe that from the letter i received today i'm stuffed??

 

please can you direct me

Link to post
Share on other sites

At The End Of The Day

Its A Hire Purchess Agreement That You Signed

Its There Fault They Did Not Get It Right When The Agreement Was Resigned

 

On The Previouse Agreement, I Take It You Had Ppi Etc

 

I Bet They Did Not Put A Rebate Into The Second Agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi andi,

 

Spoke to the Financial Ombudsman who stated that if i'm not happy then to forward the letter and then it will be passed over to the ajudicator there.

 

I'm still worrying as i need to know where i stand legally if this ended up in court?? also what could the Financial Ombudsman actually do in this case???

 

advice appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob

 

Have You Checked The Two Agreements

 

Is The Second One Exactly The Same As The First But Minus Any Ppi OR OTHER MICKY MOUSE INSURANCE

 

Also

Is The Interest Rate The Same

Are You Paying A Higher Apr On The Second Agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi post,

 

The second agreement is exactly like the first except for the following:

 

1. Does not state Hire purchase anywhere on both pages

 

2. the agreement is on two seperate pages

 

- first page consists of all the numbers, car details etc

- second page consists of my signatures and the terms and conditions

 

 

advice please

Link to post
Share on other sites

postjjg or andi or anyone

 

I have spoken to welcome today who have said the following:

 

1. I can give the car back and then pay monthly instalments upto 50% of the agreement value

 

2. If i send to the fos then they will continue to carry missed payments and default me

 

3. as i have only made 8 payments they can repossess the car

 

I seriously need help now!!!!!!!!!! advice please

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's up to you.

 

1) If you are interested in this option make sure you get it in writing before you VT - a common trick is they take the car and then pursue you for the whole amount saying they never agreed to that.

 

2) If the account is legally in dispute they aren't allowed to do this - as Welcome are about to learn damaging someones credit file whilst in default is coming to bite them in the ass as they are being taken to court for it.

 

3) Technically correct - however Welcome like to do illegal repos and if they do so the car is yours and you have nothing to pay them as a Cagger has recently found out.

 

I would say either 1 or 2 if you don't want the car tell them to take the piece of crap back BUT only once you get in writing that you can continue to pay the 50% in affordable installments.

 

Or send to FOS and make them aware that Welcome are threatening to default despite their being a legal dispute about the legitmacy of the agreement and the amount outstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...