Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Even if he was over the time  that still does not allow them the powers to fake evidence.. even the police cant do that   mmmmmmm 
    • Again, massive thanks to you for the help provided. Two questions: Should I show the dealership correspondence from Blue Motor Finance? Should I send them this letter?   I have changed a couple of bits from your letter. Please see below the final draft:   Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your email on 6th December 2021 As you know, this is a hire purchase agreement and as such you are effectively the dealer to all intents and purposes. You have a contract with the dealer but that is a different matter and of course it isn't a contract governed by the consumer rights act because neither of you are consumers. However I am a consumer and I'm protected by the consumer credit act and you have all the responsibilities to me as if you were the retailer (which you are). You are a business which is regulated under the FCA – but also you are a business which is regulated under the consumer credit act and this makes you liable under any consumer legislation which I enjoy – in particular, the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The retailer has already indicated that they are prepared to repair the first fault which occurred – the seatbelt fault.  I'm fully prepared to drive the car back to Blackburn for this repair and also for a further diagnosis of any other defects. Of course, I shall be claiming the costs of this from you – in particular if it means that the car has to stay with the dealer overnight or longer and I have to return at a later date. By insisting on this option,  I take it that you do not have any objection in me driving a faulty vehicle for over three hours, therefore assuming the risk of making the transmission issue worse or even risking a possible catastrophic transmission failure.   As a gesture of goodwill to you, I'm prepared to try and take steps to mitigate your losses by taking the car to a repairer local to me in order to have the work and diagnosis carried out there. I should warn you that if you do prefer me to return the vehicle to the retailer in Blackburn, then I may well decide to carry out my own independent inspection should the retailer not agree that the faults which I am describing exist. If an independent inspection confirms my own view, then I shall be looking to you to reimburse the cost of this inspection in addition to any other costs I reasonably incur. You may feel that it is more cost-effective for you in the long term if I have the car repaired locally and diagnosed locally because then this will also amount to an independent inspection and avoid further damage to the transmission.   In respect of your reference to a warranty, please stop trying to fob me off on to warranties. I am perfectly happy to rely on my statutory consumer rights – and I think you had better understand that. I hope you also understand that warranties are subordinate to statutory consumer rights.   You say that your business is regulated by the FCA – and of course that is correct – and that also means that if you start making misleading statements or try to avoid your responsibilities to me then in addition to county court action I am entitled to make a complaint to the financial ombudsman service. The FCA may allow you eight weeks to investigate a problem and to produce a final response, but what the FCA permits you to do is subordinate to my rights under current consumer legislation. Your trumpeting of what you are allowed to do by the FCA is calculated to mislead me. Don't do it. You have sold me a vehicle which is defective and not of satisfactory quality. This is a breach of contract. Your statement that I'm not entitled to recover any reasonable foreseeable losses caused by your breach of contract is incorrect. In particular, your statement that as a consumer I do not have the same entitlement as a business customer is quite wrong – and also calculated to mislead me because I'm sure you must know better. I accept that it is fair enough that the retailer should have an opportunity to inspect the vehicle and to ascertain the fault. As soon as my position is confirmed, then I shall be looking to you to either arrange or at least to agree the cost of repairs so that they can be put in hand without any delay. Don't imagine that that will be as long as eight weeks.   I'm giving you seven days to let me know which course of action you would prefer me to take. I hope you understand that I'm trying to have your best interests in mind at all times. Yours faithfully
    • Kickstart your career with a Data Entry Clerk Traineeship With Lightsy And Remit Training and #CreateYourFuture.View the full article
    • So long as they aren't unlawfully discriminating against you because of a protected characteristic, I presume that like anybody else they can pick and choose whom they do business with.    I understand places like Amazon and eBay will close "problem" purchaser accounts quite commonly, and will often also close other accounts that they believe are connected to a problem account  (eg same email, same physical address, same payment details etc).
    • Hi 1st all NO I will not turn it down I'm up there with the big boys   china Russia India me   with global warming   lol .  Thank you for your help but iv got nowhere with !  your repair !  As in terms of them replying  or help .its the wrong time year to drag this out fighting them while I got no hot water or heating.  I have left bad reviews on there sites  hoping that will help others from making the same mistake as me  ! joining there scam !.  As for the NEST  yes it's the government backed scheme for ppl on disability an low income to help warm there homes .  Just do what I did ASK   they can only say yes or no  and there supa fast . So thank you . I will be keeping a look in and see if any one else post about  !your repair!  As I can guarantee I wont be the last person scammed.   Cheers . 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

welcome finance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4510 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

I took out a secured loan with welcome 3.5 years ago. got a strange call on my moby a few months back telling me to check my agreement?? after fone calls letters etc i finally got a copy. to my suprise insurences i know for defo i didnt sign for were added on and also after checking have noticed they are charging me interest on my accept fee and indem fee. previous to this i cancelled my dd and waited - got the call and i said ive waited weeks for a copy of my agreement, the guy was far**ng smarty's on the other end of the phone, told me he couldnt deal with any complaints, but to write to head office. it was a 12grand loan but i am paying back nearly 4 times that. should i be charged interest on accept fees and mortgage fees. I have wrote a letter asking them for explanation within 14 days. where do i go from here:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Snuggle

Ive Got You Now

 

First Thing Is Dont Believe A Single Thing Welcome Say On The Phone

You Need To Get A Sar Sent Off To Asap

This Will Cost Ten Pounds

 

Send Recorded Delievery To

 

Welcome Financial Services

Compliance

Ruddington Fields Biz Park

Ruddington

Nottingham

Ng11 6nz

 

They Will Take Up To 40 Days For Compliance

 

A Lot Of Welcome Agreements Are Not That Good

 

Its The Screen Shots In The Sar Ime After

 

The Micky Mouse Insurance Is Another Thing

 

I Have A Few Rather Nasty Questions For Them

 

Chin Up

 

Dont Get Mad

Get Even

 

Every Time You Post Now

Ill Know

Link to post
Share on other sites

the address i was given by them on friday is diff fron the one you gave - is this a correct address - bishops house, abbeyfield road, lenton, nottingham ng7 2sz- thats where i sent recorded letter??????????

 

I will scan agreement at work tomorrow on to web site - dont have scanner here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the address i was given by them on friday is diff fron the one you gave - is this a correct address - bishops house, abbeyfield road, lenton, nottingham ng7 2sz- thats where i sent recorded letter??????????

 

I will scan agreement at work tomorrow on to web site - dont have scanner here.

 

from now on send every thing to compliance in nottingham

 

local office would not have a clue

need a urangatang not a chimp on this one

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you also claim back late payment fees, phone call fees and letter fees from Welcome Finance?

 

 

hi pbuck and excuse the pun

welcome

 

yes you can get back your charges

its not easy

 

start your own thread and ill drop in and get you started

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

not been on for a couple of weeks, but wanted to give you an update.

I sent off my letter and was contacted saying someone was dealing with it, I also got a friend who deals with financial contracts to look over my aggreement, dont want to say to much as I have since sent another letter to Welcome, but lets just say that things arent quite right and dont add up:!: !!!!!!!!:mad: and I intend to fight this until I get a satisfactory outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not been on for a couple of weeks, but wanted to give you an update.

I sent off my letter and was contacted saying someone was dealing with it, I also got a friend who deals with financial contracts to look over my aggreement, dont want to say to much as I have since sent another letter to Welcome, but lets just say that things arent quite right and dont add up:!: !!!!!!!!:mad: and I intend to fight this until I get a satisfactory outcome.

 

You go for it !!!! We are all in the same boat as you and will help wherever possible.....dont worry, you are in good hands :p

Forsure

 

** One woman crusade against the rip off lenders ! **

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi folks

 

not been on for a while. heres my update. I have now got someone checking over my complaints and I have got a refund for unlawfull charges;) but still getting knowwhere with fees etc. I wrote to them with all the calculations showing that they have charged interest on both fees then added them to charge for total credit, was told that was a load of rubbish and was then quoted some case that they won about the same complaint. I also asked them why I was charged a mortgage indemnity fee on a £12,000 loan when I thought this only applied to mortgage loans over 80% of the property value, was told all the aggreements from that time had them:!: I am starting to loose my cool now:mad: I have to say I have found this site so helpfull and its good to see everyone fighting back.

 

just want to add I got £4998 bank charges refunded to me 2 years ago:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i'm talkin to my self. well any way I looked on a gov.co web site consumers act bla bla. it explains the act. further to your chat the other nite - fees are added to charge for credit no interest added, but spread over time of loan. I am a part quailified accountant, got into a bad situation when I split from my hubby, was left with a lot of debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

does anyone have anymore info on this case. Ive tralled the internet and this is all I can find:

 

 

2007] CTLC Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited

Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited

t/a Welcome Financial Services

The High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)

Liverpool District Registry, Mercantile Court

Before HHJ Pelling QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

26 July 2006

Consumer credit - Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980

mortgage indemnity fee whether insurance premium — whether credit or part of the

total charge for credit

Summary:

The Claimant entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant which was regulated

by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act") and secured on the Claimant's

house. A mortgage indemnity fee ("MIF") of £1,441.89 was imposed by the creditor

and its payment spread over the term of the loan. In return for payment of the MIF,

the creditor promised not to pursue the debtor for any shortfall in the event of a sale

of the mortgaged property. The creditor treated the MIF as part of the total charge

for credit and so did not include it in the figure stated as the amount of credit in the

agreement. Section 9(4) of the 1974 Act provides that no item entering into the total

charge for credit is to be treated as credit even though time is allowed for its payment.

The amount of credit was stated to be £13,108.05. If the MIF had been included in

the amount of credit, it would have been £14,549.94.

The Claimant sought a declaration under Section 142(1) of the 1974 Act that the

Defendant was not entitled to enforce the agreement, on the ground that it did not

contain a correct statement of the amount of credit as required by Section 6l(l)(a) of

the 1974 Act and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements)

Regulations 1983, with the result that the agreement was altogether unenforceable

under Section 127(3). He also sought an order that the entry relating to the charge

be removed from HM Land Registry, pursuant to Section 106© of the 1974 Act.

It was not in dispute that, if the MIF was payable under a contract of insurance, it

would have fallen outside the total charge for credit, as defined by regulation 4 of the

Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and would have

formed part of the credit, since all insurance premiums other than those falling within

regulation 4© are excluded from the total charge for credit by regulation 5(1 )(i). The

Claimant maintained that the MIF was an insurance premium, in reliance upon

Prudential Insurance v IRC [1904] 2 KB 659.

Held:

That the amount of the credit was correctly stated, as the MIF was not payable

under a contract of insurance (paragraph 19). Prudential Insurance v IRC did not

provide an exhaustive definition of insurance (paragraphs 11 and 12). If the

Prudential Insurance v IRC test were to be applied, the MIF would not satisfy the

criteria because the Claimant had bought a financial package and not the right to

receive a benefit on the happening of a future contingency (paragraph 18).

Support can be found in Humberclyde Finance v Thompson [1997] CCLR 23,

where the concession that a waiver was not insurance was impliedly approved by

Brooke LJ (paragraphs 13 and 14). The MIF was analogous to collision damage

waiver and the FSA's analysis that such a waiver was not insurance appeared

correct and applicable (paragraph 18). To treat the MIF as an item falling within

Page 4

1

 

now read this:

 

Mortgage Indemnity Charge

(sometimes referred to as a High Percentage Lending Fee)

For high Loan to Value (LTV) mortgages ie. where the loan is not much less than the value of the property, it is common practice for the lender to take out a form of ‘insurance’ to protect against some or all of the losses incurred if the property needs to be taken into possession because of serious arrears. It is common practice for lenders to pass this charge on to the borrower. Depending on the amount of loan and the LTV the Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee charge can be a significant cost eg. a £47,500 mortgage on a purchase price/valuation of £50,000 would result in a £750 charge on a typical MIG charge of 7.5% on a normal lending limit of 75% loan to value. Most lenders have a different name for this charge ie. it may not appear on the mortgage Offer as Mortgage Indemnity Charge or High Percentage Lending Fee. There are some important facts to understand about the mortgage indemnity charge. It acts as a form of insurance for the lender not the borrower. This means that the lender can claim part or all of its ‘losses’ incurred repossessing the property from the insurance company providing the MIG cover. Note that even after repossession the former borrower will remain liable for any sums owing (shortfall between selling price and mortgage outstanding plus arrears, lenders legal costs and any other charges applied to the mortgage) and can be pursued by the insurance company for payment at a subsequent date. [TOP]

Edited by snugglecheeks
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...